Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 28th, 2022

[Judith Abitan, Executive Director, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting Professor Cotler to discuss the case and cause of Mr. Dawit Isaak.

Professor Cotler is unable to appear for medical reasons and has asked me to testify on his behalf as I am associated with him in these matters. He also asked that I convey his highest regard to this committee on which he served both as chair and vice-chair during his parliamentary experience and which he regards as reflective and representative of the pursuit of justice in a rules-based international order.

In 2001, the Eritrean government shut down the entire independent press in Eritrea. Mr. Isaak, a Swedish-Eritrean playwright, author, and courageous journalist with Setit, Eritrea's first independent newspaper, was arbitrarily detained, held incommunicado, denied access to family, consular assistance, the right to counsel and any semblance of constitutional rights and due process.

His crime? Setit had published an open letter criticizing the concentration of power and demanding democratic reform and human rights in Eritrea that was signed by 15 members of President Isaias Afwerki's government. No independent media has operated in Eritrea since Mr. Isaak's arrest. The World Press Freedom Index has ranked Eritrea last out of 180 countries for more than a decade, behind China and North Korea. In 2019 the committee to protect journalists designated Eritrea the most censored country in the world.

There is reason to believe that Mr. Isaak is being held in the Eiraeiro prison camp, one of a network of secret prisons where thousands of political prisoners are held in what Amnesty International calls “unimaginably atrocious conditions”. Indeed, Mr. Isaak has been denied any semblance of justice and human dignity and continues to be the victim of ongoing crimes against humanity.

This past September marked 20 years of detention for Mr. Isaak. He and his colleagues are the longest-detained journalists in the world today. Mr. Isaak's case is not only emblematic of the assault on the safety and security of journalists, but also the assault on a rules-based international order. It is a case study of the global assault on media freedom by authoritarian regimes whose exculpatory immunity continues to intensify and whose perpetrators only continue to be emboldened by the global pandemic of impunity.

Mr. Isaak's dual Swedish and Eritrean citizenship also makes this a unique cases and one that serves as a looking glass into the raison d'être for the Canadian-led Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. Accordingly, Sweden has a particular nexus to this case and related domestic and international responsibilities in this regard.

As the report on consular protection for journalists at risk abroad of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, on which Professor Cotler serves, states: Diplomatic protection is not a matter of discretion. It is an international legal obligation, an obligation that devolves on the country of the nationality of the imprisoned journalist and that devolves on the country that is detaining the journalist.

The Eritrean government has also repeatedly ignored every petition and relevant ruling for Mr. Isaak's release, including a petition for writs of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of Eritrea in 2011 and a final and binding ruling by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in 2016.

In a word, this impunity has only been incentivized by the absence of concerted action by the community of democracies on behalf of Mr. Isaak.

What now follows is a summary of key policy recommendations and legal avenues.

First, Canada should engage the signatories of the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations to secure the implementation of this declaration. Indeed, the case of Mr. Isaak is a very raison d'être and the very case study of the adoption of such a declaration.

Second, Canada needs to impose target Magnitsky sanctions in a concerted fashion within a multilateral framework upon the senior Eritrean officials involved in acts of corruption and rights violations against Mr. Isaak and his colleagues, a move advocated last October by an international coalition of leading NGOs, human rights organizations, experts, advocates, and journalists, of which the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights was one. Indeed, the importance of Magnitsky sanctions in response to the imprisonment of journalists was the first recommendation of the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom.

Third, we should support the call of leading UN experts, those engaged in the UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures, who themselves called for the urgent and immediate release of Mr. Isaak.

Fourth, we need to implement the 2016 recommendations of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea and refer the case to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Fifth, Canada, which serves as co-chair of the Media Freedom Coalition, which has pledged itself to safeguard media freedom, the safety and security of journalists should engage the members of the coalition in the case of Mr. Isaak, an emblematic case study for the Media Freedom Coalition.

I will soon come to a close.

Sixth, Canada should lead an inquiry at the Human Rights Council regarding the case of Mr. Isaak.

Seventh, Canada should factor in Eritrea's assault on the rules-based international order in its bilateral Canadian-Eritrean relationship.

Finally, Sweden should be invited to exercise a panoply of legal remedies, which it could have taken and can still undertake, to secure justice for Mr. Isaak and his colleagues and accountability for the Eritrean perpetrators.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ms. Abitan.

We now turn to Ms. Kay from IFEX.

You have five minutes.

[Rachael Kay, Deputy Executive Director, IFEX]

First of all, thank you, honourable members, for this opportunity.

I'm here tonight on behalf of IFEX, a global network of groups defending freedom of expression and information in all its forms. Our aim is to increasingly leverage this work in the form of press freedom, access to information, and safety and justice for journalists among other rights.

Like others who spoke tonight, we are seeing the expansion of authoritarianism in all its forms. Information is being weaponized in ways that have a profound impact on people and are creating a kind of information chaos. In our network alone, misuse of access to information legislation, Internet shutdowns, misinformation, attacks on media and, of course, the murder of journalists are becoming routine. As the previous session highlighted, when those targeted directly with online disinformation and smear campaigns are women, the form the attacks take is usually gendered and often results in self-censorship. The aim is to silence these voices and it is doing just that.

We can see this play out in the current context. Immediate action is required in the most urgent situations, like Afghanistan, Belarus, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Sudan, Ukraine and Russia, just to name a few.

As my colleague, Rachel, recommended, it's imperative that a coordinated system of emergency support for journalists at risk and their families be created. We see Canada already moving in the right direction on this, but we must continue to increase our effectiveness. To be effective, these systems should include providing emergency visas that have simple and secure methods of submission. In the absence of such, they should expedite the processing of visas for journalists and their families, and ensure safe passage.

Key to this is effective coordination with local and international civil society organizations, like Journalists for Human Rights, that are working to protect and evacuate journalists.

We see that media freedom has never been more crucial. Democracies cannot survive and flourish without free, independent and pluralistic media. We need to reverse engineer the current branding of the media as fake news and the enemy of the people as normal. It is a lexicon that has been adopted around the world. It is language that is mimicked and acted upon and includes continued verbal and physical attacks on the media with total impunity.

This has had a profound impact on press freedom and journalists in particular. Be sure that no country, including Canada, is exempt from this trend. This narrative needs to be countered forcefully with words and actions.

Outside of intervening in urgent situations, the government must play a significant, ongoing role in reinforcing the importance of press freedom and respect for journalists in its own national context.

There is also a need for accountability. The criminalization of journalism and abuse of law by state actors has to end. We call on multilateral relationships and institutions to ensure that those who attack the media face real consequences for their actions. Otherwise, attacks against the press will continue to escalate and any standards championed by Canada will remain empty.

Within these relationships, Canada must be visible by being connected and committed to international mechanisms, engage in coalitions, fund and acknowledge the benefit of international institutions in upholding press freedom and be present and vocal in support of their efforts. Canada's leadership as co-chair of the Media Freedom Coalition, as current chair of the Freedom Online Coalition, as well as with the Community of Democracies working group on enabling and protecting civil society is already a very positive and welcome example of this.

At IFEX, our network of over 100 organizations based in more than 70 countries actively advocates for freedom of expression and information as a fundamental human right. Many do so in very dangerous circumstances. The targeted repression of press freedom advocates and journalists and the attack on communities and institutions see accepted norms being undermined and weakened.

We have been called on to do more direct support for our members across all regions who find themselves increasingly under attack by authoritarian states that are focused on shutting down the voices of civil society and threatening dissent at any price. Organizations whose offices and staff are targeted and harassed with no other aim but closure and erasure need to be supported, funded and engaged with because these are the voices that call for accountability. If these voices are shuttered, it will leave a vacuum for democracy.

We know these issues are complex. IFEX members and allies around the world have been working on them for years by doing grassroots advocacy, publishing reports and indexes, offering solutions, and campaigning. They are a rich pool of knowledge that could inform Canada's policies and discussions with nuance and a national and global perspective. As part of your efforts and your focus on media freedom, we would welcome being a conduit to these sources.

Governments and civil society groups need to continue to find ways to collaborate and to be at the table together.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Kay.

We now turn to Mr. Clifford from The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong.

[Dr. Mark Clifford, President, The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, honourable members, for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.

I am here as a representative of The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong, whose primary focus is the release of political prisoners in Hong Kong, which is quite remarkable, because who among us would have though, even three years ago, that we'd be talking about political prisoners in Hong Kong, once a place that was known as one of the freest places in Asia.

However, thanks to the national security law that was imposed on Hong Kong in mid-2020 by the Chinese government, any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese state has essentially been criminalized. We have a situation where most pro-democracy newspapers have been closed and civil society has been destroyed.

I am particularly focused on.... I'd like to tell you a story in my five minutes about the Next Digital media group, where I was an independent non-executive director. It's a story, really, of seven of my former colleagues who are, as we speak, in jail. They're in jail mostly without trial, let alone conviction. They're just seven of the more than 10,000 people who have been arrested on political charges as a result of the anti-government activities of 2019 and 2020 in Hong Kong.

I'm a former independent non-executive director of Next Digital, a company that is or was listed on the stock exchange of Hong Kong. It had a market capitalization of about $100 million when it was destroyed in mid-2021 as a result of government action taken under the national security law.

By focusing on my seven former colleagues, they can stand for the 10,000-plus people in Hong Kong, and really the 7,500,000 people who have been oppressed under the national security law. Their case demonstrates the way in which the Chinese Communist Party and its enablers in the Hong Kong government and private sector are engaging in lawfare, using the veneer of the legal system that underpins well-governed democracies, not for justice or to reach a fair verdict but in pursuit of a predetermined political end. In this case, it was the silencing of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily.

The national security law is a broad, all-encompassing law that effectively criminalizes any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party by anyone anywhere in the world. In fact, last week one of my colleagues in London, Benedict Rogers from Hong Kong Watch, was threatened with jail if he didn't shut down his website, a London-based website, run by a British citizen that was deemed criminal by the Hong Kong authorities.

In the case of Next Digital, first the shares of the founder and largest shareholder, Jimmy Lai, were frozen by the secretary for security, because he said he had reason to believe that Mr. Lai had violated the national security law. There was no court order. Mr. Lai was already in jail, and at the same time, the secretary for security froze three Singapore-based bank accounts held by Mr. Lai at OCBC and Citi.

I mention this because many people are still under the illusion that Hong Kong is a place that cares about rule of law and property rights, and that it still has something left of its old days as a rule of law and free market oriented society that would tolerate, even welcome, free press and free discussion.

It's important to note that the secretary for security provided no evidence to back his claim that Mr. Lai had violated the national security law, nor did he seek a court order, let alone take the case to trial, and prove Mr. Lai guilty before a jury.

One month later, in mid-June 2021, authorities took a further series of action. They sent 550 armed police to our newspaper headquarters. They arrested the chief executive officer, Cheung Kim-hung; the editor-in-chief, Ryan Law, and detained other staff. Mr. Cheung Kim-hung and Mr. Law have been held without bail since that time. They also await trial.

Four other former colleagues have been held without bail since the summer of 2021. I think it's important to say their names, because these are individuals. They are seven among hundreds of thousands of people who are facing political charges in Hong Kong. They are Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee, Fung Wai-kong, and Lam Man-chung.

The secretary for security then froze the bank accounts of our operating companies. We were unable to accept payments from our nearly 600,000 digital subscribers. Although our employees were afraid and some of them had notes, computers and documents seized, they continued to put out the newspaper until we were finally forced to close, printing on that last edition a record one million copies, which were quickly sold.

Starved of cash, we had no choice but to shut the newspaper, and the directors ended up resigning, yet the government is still pursuing us. There are four different investigations, we're told, that are going on against us, and the government seems determined to prove that this has nothing to do with freedom of the press, but everything to do with a mismanaged company.

My ask for Canada is not quite as dramatic or as far-reaching as some of the other panellists, but there are something like 300,000 Canadian passport holders in Hong Kong. I hope that you continue to advocate for them, journalists and non-journalists alike. I hope that, given the experience that Canada has unfortunately had with China's hostage-taking approach to diplomacy, you will put human rights front and centre in every conversation that your ambassadors, other diplomats and other officials have with Chinese officials and Hong Kong officials.

I would also recommend Magnitsky-style sanctions, not only for senior Hong Kong government officials—because they will be taken care of by the Chinese authorities—but also for middle-ranking officials, for judges and also for the enablers in the private sector, who have continued to pursue not only former directors of Next Digital but also other people. They are doing part of the government's dirty work in trying to destroy freedom in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Clifford—

[Dr. Mark Clifford]

—one of the most remarkable cities in the world and I appreciate your support.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that, Mr. Clifford.

Now we will go to questions. In the interests of time and being equitable, I'm going to have to ask all members to only take up four minutes with each round of questions, please.

The first round of questions goes to Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Abitan. Before I begin, I'd like to ask you to please pass on our best wishes for a speedy recovery to Professor Cotler.

Thank you very much for being here and, particularly, for raising the extremely troubling case of Dawit Isaak. You mentioned that this is a case study. He's one of the longest-held journalists in detention in the world.

Would you have particular lessons that you would draw from his particular case? How important is it that we, as parliamentarians, in a hearing like this and in other formats continue to raise his case and other cases like it?

[Judith Abitan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Vandenbeld, for that very important question. I'm very delighted to be here this evening with this distinguished group of parliamentarians. I will happily relay your kind wishes to Professor Cotler.

To be expedient with time, I want to say that the fact that Mr. Isaak is, with his colleagues, the longest detained journalist in the world is really the emblematic case of media freedom and the global assault on rules-based international order.

Mr. Isaak's case happens to be an extremely egregious case. It is one that is deeply painful. He's been subjected to all sorts of horrific acts in detention, and he has had absolutely no access to consulate protection. He's had absolutely no access to counsel or to family. He hasn't seen anyone, let alone the light of day, for probably 20-plus years.

How can we make his case the case study for the global assault on media freedom? It's very simple. Canada can play a leadership role. As I mentioned earlier, this is one of my recommendations. Canada led the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations, so we can take this case, raise it within that context and make it the emblematic case for the discussion on the global assault on media freedom.

I hope that answers part of your question.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Yes. Thank you very much, and thank you for your ongoing advocacy.

My second question is for Ms. Pulfer. You mentioned in your presentation that Canada should have an evergreen visa program for journalists.

When we did our last study a few years ago in this committee on women human rights defenders, we recommended creating an immigration stream for human rights defenders. Since then, the Government of Canada has created such a stream. Right now, it's at about 250 human rights defenders.

Could you tell us how we could both expand and improve upon that particular immigration program?

[Rachel Pulfer]

It's a very good point. Thank you so much for the question.

Yes, it is true that there is a 250 per year visa program for human rights defenders. Journalists are one of eight categories that it is intended to serve. It's an excellent introduction to a world in which we have these kinds of designated streams of visas for people at risk.

The challenge is the scale of the need for journalists who are fleeing persecution as contrasted with the number of visas available. We were joking earlier today as I was preparing for these comments that we have managed to secure one and a half visas through that program for our Afghan cohort of journalists who are fleeing persecution at the hands of the Taliban. The half is because we're not entirely sure whether one of the journalists is going to be recommended, but we think so. The remaining 248 and a half spots were justifiably taken up by human rights defenders and their family members who were also escaping Afghanistan, as was true for the majority of cases this year.

What this tells us, working to protect journalists in these kinds of environments and to provide them with options for safe passage and asylum, is that there's an acute need for an evergreen program of the kind that the Dutch government is currently working to put up. The Dutch government is working on a 50-visa program plus provision for family members. This is something that has been recommended by their Parliament. Canada is currently co-chairing the Media Freedom Coalition with the Government of the Netherlands, which seems like a real opportunity for Canada to show leadership by working out a program of emergency visas specifically for journalists and their families and also encouraging other member states within the coalition to do the same, considering the acute situation that we face.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Pulfer.

We now go to Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I think Mr. Cooper is going to take it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll direct my questions to Mr. Clifford.

First of all, I share your concern for the 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong and I agree with you that the government should move forward in expanding Magnitsky sanctions against individuals in Hong Kong who are responsible at a mid-level or are otherwise connected to the dismantling of democracy in Hong Kong.

You spoke about the authorities using lawfare to attack journalists and stifle an independent press, primarily using the national security law but also using other colonial-era laws such as sedition laws.

Could you speak to some of the other tactics that the regime is using, whether those be content removal, blocking websites, economic pressure, physical attacks on journalists and so on? Could you elaborate on that?

[Dr. Mark Clifford]

Thank you for the excellent question. The honourable member is clearly very well informed about Hong Kong and the use of sedition laws and other threats.

It's a broad-based attack on civil society. We've seen scores of civil society organizations disband. The legal tactics are the most effective because they tend to focus the minds of the heads of organizations with the threat of prison or the threat of bankruptcy of the organizations. Banks, notably HSBC, have been very active in freezing accounts when asked to by the government, but I also think we have to look at the role of the Hong Kong elite and of the pro-Beijing media. I am among many people who have been attacked by Wen Wei Po which, along with Ta Kung Pao, is one of the two communist-dominated newspapers in Hong Kong. We're seeing a pattern with these media often quoting mainland Chinese experts, who will start attacking an individual or an organization, and if that individual or organization doesn't cease, desist or flee the territory, then the lawfare starts.

It's a broad and remarkably effective, from the communist perspective, attack on civil society organizations, education, and obviously the legal system and the media. For example, anyone who wanted to commemorate the June 4 Tiananmen Square killings in 1989 was effectively threatened with jail, bankruptcy or other punishment.

I would say the area that honourable members should also be looking at going forward is religion, because religion is one of the last independent institutions in Hong Kong. The Catholic and Protestant churches in particular are a source of education and a source of free thinking, and I think it will be interesting to see if these tactics are extended to them as well.

I thank the members for their interest.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you for that.

You spoke about the Beijing-based media. I'd also be curious to hear your comments on the impact of what has been effectively a takeover of RTHK. It was established in 1928 and modelled after the BBC. It was a well-respected news source with diverse viewpoints up until very recently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You have 20 seconds.

[Dr. Mark Clifford]

That's another excellent question.

To clarify the honourable member's comment, the two newspapers I mentioned are actually Hong Kong newspapers. They're either controlled or owned by the Chinese Communist Party.

RTHK, as the member correctly pointed out, has long had a tradition of independence in its broadcasting. In the last year or so, it has seen a political appointee put in who literally erased history by ordering much of the archives to be deleted; so actually, Hong Kong's history is being erased. Again, that is a typical communist tactic to control history. One of the star reporters who did a great job reporting was then prosecuted for her reporting. Other staff have been fired or have had their contracts not renewed.

RTHK, which was up there with CBC and BBC, and really was an extraordinary news organization, is now more like Pravda or Xinhua or People's Daily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Clifford.

Mr. Trudel, you have four minutes.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first questions will be addressed to Ms. Abitan.

I would like to come back to the case of Mr. Isaak, which is emblematic, as you said. There is an element that I find important with regard to people who are imprisoned in repressive countries. It is the issue of dual citizenship not being recognized. You said that Mr. Isaak had not been visited in 20 years.

Did the Eritrean government deny Mr. Isaak's Swedish citizenship? Does it not recognize Mr. Isaak's Swedish passport?

[Judith Abitan]

Thank you for your very pertinent and important question.

I would like to start by saying that it is certain that the Eritrean government has completely denied Mr. Isaak's Swedish citizenship. Secondly, I would like to go a step further and say that Mr. Isaak's dual Swedish and Eritrean citizenship also makes him a unique case. As Mr. Isaak is a European national, of course, Sweden has a special status and special national and international legal responsibilities in this respect.

As I said earlier in my speech, according to Professor Cotler's report on consular protection for journalists at risk abroad in the context of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, diplomatic protection is not a matter of discretion, it is an international legal obligation. This obligation devolves on the country of the nationality of the imprisoned journalist and on the country that is detaining the journalist. In this case, it is Sweden, as the country of nationality of the detained journalist, and Eritrea, as the country holding the journalist. I would add that Eritrea, which is responsible for Mr. Isaak's enforced disappearance, has been holding him arbitrarily for 20 years.

So there is indeed a very important responsibility on both sides. I could go much further, if I had the time, and talk to you about the Swedish aspect.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

That is precisely the subject of my next question.

What has the Swedish government done over the past 20 years, in concrete terms, to intervene in this issue?

[Judith Abitan]

That is an excellent question as well.

On the Swedish side, there have been five complaints imploring the Swedish prosecuting authority to open an investigation in Mr. Isaak's case and they have all been rejected, despite the principle of universal jurisdiction and the fact that the Swedish prosecuting authority has already determined, in a judgment, that "there is reason to assume that at least crimes against humanity have been committed against Dawit Isaak.”

On the domestic legal front, there have therefore been five complaints. Furthermore, on the diplomatic front, nine Swedish foreign ministers have failed to secure the release of Mr. Isaak, unfortunately. The Swedish Parliament is due to present the long-awaited conclusions of an independent parliamentary commission of inquiry that has been set up to examine and evaluate the government's efforts to secure Mr. Isaak's release. This will take place on October 31, 2022.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

If nine Swedish foreign ministers have not managed to do something for Mr. Isaak, how could Canada intervene in this matter?

Earlier, you said that Canada should push for the implementation of the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. So what can we, who are not involved in this issue, do to force a sovereign country like Eritrea to react in such a case?

What tools do we have?