Lawyer explains how dangerous a new KRG proposed law on online activity is

Whom will the law sanction?

By Payman Azeez

The proposed law for regulating electronic and social media, which has been through the first round of vote by the Kurdistan Region Parliament, is now in the next phase, in which the parliament committees will write their assessments for the next round of vote. The resolution concerns all citizens, especially journalists.

The following is my view on the issue.

First: who will be affected by this law?
According to the Article 4 of the proposed law, all those who publish in outlets and official online pages, and those who are editors and holders of licences, or anyone who as an individual has a page or an account on the social media platforms, are affected by this law.

Thus, this law is not limited to online news outlets, but it includes all what is written and published by a person or an organization, on formal or not formal pages and personal accounts.

Second: who will this law punish, and how does it define “crime”?

Articles 12, 16 and 13 determine the punishments

Article 12:
In this article without mentioning the crimes, it makes Sections 2 and 4 of Article 4 of the {Counter Terrorism Law} a part of this law, and everyone that this law covers, must not spread what is mentioned the {Counter Terrorism Law}.

So, what are the things that aren’t allowed to be spared according to Sections 2 and 4?
Section 4 of Article 3 from 2006, defines the following as terrorism, for which a maximum sentence of 15 years is determined:

Section 2 of the Article, which the proposed law relies on stipulates: writings, press, recorded tape or anything similar, having in possession or obtaining images that encourage, praise, or make propaganda to commit acts of terrorism, with the intention of spreading or giving it away.

Section 4 stipulates: if one deliberately spreads a news, analysis or propaganda for terrorism, exploiting or using visual, audio, written, or electronic mediums, spreading statements on the internet that encourage acts of terrorism in a manner that puts the security of the general public in danger, and spreads fear among people and threaten the political structure of the Kurdistan Region.

If we take a close look at those two sections, we realize that how disastrous the Counter Terrorism law us. The entire Article 4 is full of obscurity and ambiguous terms, which has been the subject of criticism, and has been regarded as a tool against the rivals of PUK and KDP. But the ones who wrote the [latest] resolution and the ones who voted for it (aware of it or not) have extended the punishment to include not just members of political parties, but all who speak out.

What are “general security” and “terror crimes,” and who determines their definitions?
What are “terrorizing news and analyses” and how are they determined?
Leaving the interpretation and exposition of all those ambiguity to a party-biased judiciary is in whose interest?

Article 13:
This article stipulates: next to the punishment mentioned in article 12, a judge will determine the punishment for offenders according to Section 2 of Article 6 of the {Journalism Law in Kurdistan\ Number 35 of Year 2007}.

So, if we take a look at that article of Law 35 form 2007, we see that it meant for corrections and explanations, i.e. meant for those media outlets and websites that do not issue corrections or explanations.

What raises one’s eyebrows is that the crimes mentioned in Article 12 [of the new resolution] and what is mentioned in Article 13, do not include in any way a number of misdeeds (like embezzlement, theft and exploitation) being committed on social media, which is currently a judicial ineptitude and which people suffer from.

Article 16:
Most of the sections of this article contradict one another. For example, Section 2 determines a fine of 500,000 to 3 million [Iraqi Dinars] for offenders of Article 11. But Article 11 is about corrections and explanations, and Article 13 refers to Section 2 of Article 6 of Law 35 for the punishments on failure on corrections and explanations, which determines a punishment of a fine of 1 to 2 million [Dinars].

How can there be two different punishments for the same crime? Which one a judge should go by, the one in Law 35 as Article 13 of this resolution stipulates, or the one that is determined in Article 16.

Section 4 of Article 16 stipulates:
An editor-in-chief of a “website”, or the owner of an account or a page, will be fined an amount of 1 to 5 million, if they defame someone, or insulted them, or threatened them, whether in a post, a comment or a message. And if they continue, their registration will be omitted and their accounts and formal pages will be closed down, and will be barred for 3 years from owning a website, a page or an account on their own name.

This section has the same content as Section 2 of the {The Misuse of Communication Devices Law}, but stipulates a bigger fine.

Section 5 of Article 16, reiterates the enforcement of Sections 2 and 4 of Article 4 of the {Counter Terrorism Law}.
This reiteration makes the intentions of those who wrote the resolution clear. They weren’t satisfied with [punishment stipulated by] Article 13, but have put in Article 16 that a website’s editor-in-chief, will get the same treatment and punishments as terrorists.

That’s why if this resolution passes and is signed into a law, it will be one of the most draconian laws to muffle criticism and dissenting voices.

I hope that all those who have voted for this resolution and then changed their minds, stop talking about retracting their votes, because that will not prevent the resolution from being taken to the next rounds of votes. But they can object to those sections at the Parliamentary committees and at the Parliament to prevent it from passing.