DhiTV and DhiFM were the first ever private television and radio stations launched in the history of the tiny island nation of the Maldives. Till 2008, Maldives had only government-controlled media houses, such as Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM). Other than these, there were three daily newspapers, which were also owned by the then cabinet ministers. Unfortunately, both DhiTV and DhiFM was shut down on August 10, 2016.&nbsp;

DhiTV and DhiFM became very important in Maldives&#39; media history. For the first time, it allowed the citizens of Maldives to hear a different side of the story;&nbsp; it provided the people with an option other than the official version of an event, emanating from the government-affiliated media establishment.

The news of DhiTV shutdown came as a shock to the whole country, as the news of the closure was abruptly announced to the television staffs, just a day after the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) passed the Anti-defamation bill in the parliament.&nbsp;

The stations, owned by the local business tycoon Champa Mohamed Moosa (uhchu), were operated by Broadcasting Maldives and Maldives Media Company. In a joint memo sent to the staffs on 10th August, the companies announced the shut down of the transmission of the channels that day itself at 00:00 hours, saying that they do not believe the channels could be run in a sustainable manner under the current circumstance. The staffs were given notice of three months with salary. Though the companies did not officially mention anything about the Anti-defamation and Freedom of Expression Act that were ratified on 11th&nbsp; August, arguably the decision was linked to it.&nbsp;

The Anti-defamation act allows fines up to MVR 2 Million which is approximately US$ 130,0000.&nbsp; The Act stipulates that any media house can be closed down if found guilty of slander, for having breached social norms, and if it threatened national security in some way. Under the Act, a company can be held accountable and punished for going against the tenets of Islam. Failure to pay the fines will result in a jail sentence of up to 6 months. What makes it worse is, individuals and media stations can only appeal the sentence after paying the fine.

Irrespective of their relation to the government, the Maldivian media stood united against the bill. The only exception was the Public Service Media (PSM) which was independent, yet always supported measures taken by Maldive government. PSM not only supported the&nbsp; proposed bill from the government but also tried to justify it by using Islam as a shield. PSM was broadcasting various programs, bringing Islamic scholars to talk about defamation from a religious perspective.&nbsp;

Maybe what PSM did not understand was that the journalists raising voice against the bill are also not in favor of defamation.&nbsp;

I always believed that to be a responsible reporter, we need to be careful about defamation. But that does not mean, I am supporting any restriction on either freedom of expression or freedom of speech in the name of defamation. It is a right guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of Maldives, and exercising these rights are necessary for a journalists to act as a watchdog in a democracy. Right to freedom of expression and freedom of media can not be restricted even in a state of emergency. Parliament can only pass a law if it is not opposing the constitution.&nbsp;

Concerns expressed by the majority of Maldivian journalists were ignored by the parliamentary members of the ruling party. Instead, they passed the bill with even tougher penalties. Sadly, some of these members are also the owner of various media outlets; they not only let down Maldivian journalists and the general public but also their own employees. For instance, the owner of Sun Media Group&nbsp;Ahmed Shiyam,&nbsp;who is also the leader of the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as well as Yamin Rasheed,&nbsp;the owner of the Sangu TV and Member of Parliament of the PPM party,&nbsp;voted&nbsp; in favor of the bill.&nbsp; Journalists from both media outlets were raising their voice against the bill and calling the MPs to vote against it. But their voice went unheard.&nbsp;

Our voice went unheard and the government ratified the bill criminalising defamation with hefty fines.

The Anti-defamation Act could be used by anyone as a harassment tool against journalists and to attack the fourth power of democracy. Now the question is why just DhiTV? After all, DhiTV has been long labeled as a pro-government channel. Why not some other station like RajjeTV, which is popularly known as an anti-government station.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Informed sources gave us some hints that DhiTV has been on the government&#39;s blacklist as much as RajjeTV; during 2013 presidential election campaign, DhiTV was against President Yamin Abdul Gayoom. During the PPM primary, former Home Minister Umar Naseer and Yamin Gayoom were contesting to be the PPM presidential candidate, DhiTV was against Yamin and backing Umar. Even after Yamin won the primary, DhiTV continued their stand against Yamin by backing the presidential campaign of President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik of the time. As a business tycoon, investing many projects in Maldives, the owner of DhiTV surely will need the government&rsquo;s cooperation, even if he has to give up DhiTV for that.&nbsp;

When DhiTV was shut down, I was part of the team working as a news anchor. During that last week, I mostly had 2 p.m and 8 p.m news. August 10th was the only day when I had to present the 10 p.m news.&nbsp; Management decided to end the news coverage with the 8.pm news and I did not get the chance to say goodbye. I just wished, I knew 8 p.m prime time news of 9th August was going to be my last time live on DhiTV. What bothered us more was not that we lost our job, but we lost DhiTV. Re-opening DhiTV soon is our hope. And I believe it will happen sooner or later.&nbsp;

Management of DhiTV decided to end the news coverage with the 8PM news and I did not get the chance to say goodbye

DhiTV and DhiFM were the first ever private television and radio stations launched in the history of the tiny island nation of the Maldives. Till 2008, Maldives had only government-controlled media houses, such as Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM). Other than these, there were three daily newspapers, which were also owned by the then cabinet ministers. Unfortunately, both DhiTV and DhiFM was shut down on August 10, 2016. DhiTV and DhiFM became very important in Maldives' media history. For the first time, it allowed the citizens of Maldives to hear a different side of the story; it provided the people with an option other than the official version of an event, emanating from the government-affiliated media establishment. The news of DhiTV shutdown came as a shock to the whole country, as the news of the closure was abruptly announced to the television staffs, just a day after the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) passed the Anti-defamation bill in the parliament. The stations, owned by the local business tycoon Champa Mohamed Moosa (uhchu), were operated by Broadcasting Maldives and Maldives Media Company. In a joint memo sent to the staffs on 10th August, the companies announced the shut down of the transmission of the channels that day itself at 00:00 hours, saying that they do not believe the channels could be run in a sustainable manner under the current circumstance. The staffs were given notice of three months with salary. Though the companies did not officially mention anything about the Anti-defamation and Freedom of Expression Act that were ratified on 11th August, arguably the decision was linked to it. The Anti-defamation act allows fines up to MVR 2 Million which is approximately US$ 130,0000. The Act stipulates that any media house can be closed down if found guilty of slander, for having breached social norms, and if it threatened national security in some way. Under the Act, a company can be held accountable and punished for going against the tenets of Islam. Failure to pay the fines will result in a jail sentence of up to 6 months. What makes it worse is, individuals and media stations can only appeal the sentence after paying the fine. Irrespective of their relation to the government, the Maldivian media stood united against the bill. The only exception was the Public Service Media (PSM) which was independent, yet always supported measures taken by Maldive government. PSM not only supported the proposed bill from the government but also tried to justify it by using Islam as a shield. PSM was broadcasting various programs, bringing Islamic scholars to talk about defamation from a religious perspective. Maybe what PSM did not understand was that the journalists raising voice against the bill are also not in favor of defamation. I always believed that to be a responsible reporter, we need to be careful about defamation. But that does not mean, I am supporting any restriction on either freedom of expression or freedom of speech in the name of defamation. It is a right guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of Maldives, and exercising these rights are necessary for a journalists to act as a watchdog in a democracy. Right to freedom of expression and freedom of media can not be restricted even in a state of emergency. Parliament can only pass a law if it is not opposing the constitution. Concerns expressed by the majority of Maldivian journalists were ignored by the parliamentary members of the ruling party. Instead, they passed the bill with even tougher penalties. Sadly, some of these members are also the owner of various media outlets; they not only let down Maldivian journalists and the general public but also their own employees. For instance, the owner of Sun Media Group Ahmed Shiyam, who is also the leader of the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as well as Yamin Rasheed, the owner of the Sangu TV and Member of Parliament of the PPM party, voted in favor of the bill. Journalists from both media outlets were raising their voice against the bill and calling the MPs to vote against it. But their voice went unheard. Our voice went unheard and the government ratified the bill criminalising defamation with hefty fines. The Anti-defamation Act could be used by anyone as a harassment tool against journalists and to attack the fourth power of democracy. Now the question is why just DhiTV? After all, DhiTV has been long labeled as a pro-government channel. Why not some other station like RajjeTV, which is popularly known as an anti-government station. Informed sources gave us some hints that DhiTV has been on the government's blacklist as much as RajjeTV; during 2013 presidential election campaign, DhiTV was against President Yamin Abdul Gayoom. During the PPM primary, former Home Minister Umar Naseer and Yamin Gayoom were contesting to be the PPM presidential candidate, DhiTV was against Yamin and backing Umar. Even after Yamin won the primary, DhiTV continued their stand against Yamin by backing the presidential campaign of President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik of the time. As a business tycoon, investing many projects in Maldives, the owner of DhiTV surely will need the government’s cooperation, even if he has to give up DhiTV for that. When DhiTV was shut down, I was part of the team working as a news anchor. During that last week, I mostly had 2 p.m and 8 p.m news. August 10th was the only day when I had to present the 10 p.m news. Management decided to end the news coverage with the 8.pm news and I did not get the chance to say goodbye. I just wished, I knew 8 p.m prime time news of 9th August was going to be my last time live on DhiTV. What bothered us more was not that we lost our job, but we lost DhiTV. Re-opening DhiTV soon is our hope. And I believe it will happen sooner or later.

Freedom of expression under siege in Maldives

A federal judge in Rio has issued an injunction overruling a government ban on political banners or slogans during the Olympic Games, allowing &quot;peaceful&quot; demonstrations. 
 
Judge Joao Augusto Carneiro Ara?jo issued the injunction late on Monday following a request by federal prosecutors who questioned the ban decided by the governments of Brazil and Rio state and the Rio2016 organising committee. 
 
The prosecutors said the ban infringed constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. The judge&#39;s injunction can be appealed against and, being a constitutional issue, could end up in the Supreme Court. 
 
The expulsion from Olympic venues of spectators carrying banners or shouting slogans against interim President Michel Temer stirred outcry on social media, but Games organisers threw their support behind the move. 
 
A video of security guards in red berets and camouflage gear surrounding a man holding a &quot;Temer Out&quot; banner and manhandling him from the stands of the archery event on Saturday prompted a barrage of criticism from Brazilians. 
 
(Reuters)

Prosecutors said the ban infringed constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression

A federal judge in Rio has issued an injunction overruling a government ban on political banners or slogans during the Olympic Games, allowing "peaceful" demonstrations. Judge Joao Augusto Carneiro Ara?jo issued the injunction late on Monday following a request by federal prosecutors who questioned the ban decided by the governments of Brazil and Rio state and the Rio2016 organising committee. The prosecutors said the ban infringed constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. The judge's injunction can be appealed against and, being a constitutional issue, could end up in the Supreme Court. The expulsion from Olympic venues of spectators carrying banners or shouting slogans against interim President Michel Temer stirred outcry on social media, but Games organisers threw their support behind the move. A video of security guards in red berets and camouflage gear surrounding a man holding a "Temer Out" banner and manhandling him from the stands of the archery event on Saturday prompted a barrage of criticism from Brazilians. (Reuters)

Rio judge overrules ban on political demos at Olympics

Maldives&#39; new law will criminalise free speech on vague grounds and is a &quot;direct attack&quot; on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the country, a top UN human rights expert has said. 
 
&quot;Criminalising speech on such vague and broad grounds as set out in the Bill is a direct attack on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the Maldives,&quot; said David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. 
 
Kaye said elements of the bill, such as the vague use of religion, social norms and defamation as reasons for punishing expression, contradict not only international norms, but also obligations set out in the country&#39;s own Constitution. 
 
&quot;Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and any restrictions on it must be narrowly and objectively defined, not a matter of common routine,&quot; he said in a statement issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. 
 
This week, the Maldive&#39;s Parliament adopted the &quot;Protection of Reputation and Good Name and Freedom of Expression Bill,&quot; which criminalises speech deemed to be defamatory, to comment against &quot;any tenet of Islam&quot;, to &quot;threaten national security&quot; or to &quot;contradict general social norms&quot;. 
 
Those committing an offence under the bill can face fines, and failure to pay, will result in jail sentence of three to six months. 
 
Kaye said that the broad grounds for restrictions in the Bill contradict not only international human rights standards recognised by the Maldives, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also the its own Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of expression. 
 
&quot;The use of religion as a ground for limiting free speech is particularly worrying,&quot; he said, emphasising that international human rights law protects individuals from discrimination and violence based on their religion or belief, but it does not protect religion or belief from comment or criticism as such. 
 
Kaye also said the Bill will have a &quot;strong chilling effect&quot; on media and civil society, making reporting and criticism truly risky. 
 
&quot;The threat of additional penalties for the media are likely to lead to even greater self-censorship on issues perceived to be sensitive, limiting public debate on issues of public interest and depriving society from accessing important information on sensitive affairs,&quot; he said. 
 
Noting that he would be eager to engage in discussion with the Maldivian authorities on the law, the rights expert expressed hope that the President will reverse the decision by sending back the bill to Parliament for further review in consultation with independent institutions, journalists, civil society organisations and human rights defenders and bring it in compliance with international human rights standards. 
 
UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association Maina Kiai and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders Michel Forst also shared the concerns expressed by Kaye. 
 
They had also co-signed a letter to the national authorities detailing their concerns about the legislation on May 26. 
 
(PTI)

The law, passed in the Maldives criminalises defamatory actions deemed to be against 'any tenet of Islam'

Maldives' new law will criminalise free speech on vague grounds and is a "direct attack" on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the country, a top UN human rights expert has said. "Criminalising speech on such vague and broad grounds as set out in the Bill is a direct attack on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the Maldives," said David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Kaye said elements of the bill, such as the vague use of religion, social norms and defamation as reasons for punishing expression, contradict not only international norms, but also obligations set out in the country's own Constitution. "Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and any restrictions on it must be narrowly and objectively defined, not a matter of common routine," he said in a statement issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This week, the Maldive's Parliament adopted the "Protection of Reputation and Good Name and Freedom of Expression Bill," which criminalises speech deemed to be defamatory, to comment against "any tenet of Islam", to "threaten national security" or to "contradict general social norms". Those committing an offence under the bill can face fines, and failure to pay, will result in jail sentence of three to six months. Kaye said that the broad grounds for restrictions in the Bill contradict not only international human rights standards recognised by the Maldives, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also the its own Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of expression. "The use of religion as a ground for limiting free speech is particularly worrying," he said, emphasising that international human rights law protects individuals from discrimination and violence based on their religion or belief, but it does not protect religion or belief from comment or criticism as such. Kaye also said the Bill will have a "strong chilling effect" on media and civil society, making reporting and criticism truly risky. "The threat of additional penalties for the media are likely to lead to even greater self-censorship on issues perceived to be sensitive, limiting public debate on issues of public interest and depriving society from accessing important information on sensitive affairs," he said. Noting that he would be eager to engage in discussion with the Maldivian authorities on the law, the rights expert expressed hope that the President will reverse the decision by sending back the bill to Parliament for further review in consultation with independent institutions, journalists, civil society organisations and human rights defenders and bring it in compliance with international human rights standards. UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association Maina Kiai and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders Michel Forst also shared the concerns expressed by Kaye. They had also co-signed a letter to the national authorities detailing their concerns about the legislation on May 26. (PTI)

New law 'direct attack' on freedom of expression in Maldives: UN