Tag: freedom of speech

The Battle of NGOs in Nicaragua: A Human Rights Crisis

Arbitrarily detained, beaten in prison, exiled, and stripped of their nationality has become a common experience for activists in Nicaragua. This is the case of Kevin Solís, who was arbitrarily detained twice; in 2018 for allegedly obstructing public services and carrying a firearm, and later in 2020 for alleged robbery and assault. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined there had been irregularities in the legal procedures of Kevin’s case, a violation of his legal rights, and a concerning threat to his rights to life and integrity. Along with Solís, another two hundred political prisoners were released in 2023, some of whose citizenship was later revoked. Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega’s war against NGOs is rooted in his plan to crush opposition to his leadership and avoid responsibility for human rights violations.

But how did Nicaragua get to this point?

2018 was the start of a large and violent retaliation of the government against protestors. However, 5 years prior, discontent was already blooming in the Nicaraguan people’s hearts. The Nicaraguan Congress passed, on June 13, 2013, a law that affects the future livelihood of many communities, Law 840. The law deals with the development of infrastructure and free trade zones. As a result of this legal advancement, communities would be pushed out of their homes to accommodate ‘new and improved’ facilities. According to an Amnesty International report, Law 840 allows the government to authorize the construction of projects without consulting the communities that would be affected. Among those is Francisca Ramirez, whose community learned about a new project approved through Law 840 in a televised announcement by President Ortega. To their surprise, the president had sold the land they lived on to foreign investors for canal construction and subsequent amenities. Francisca and her community, along with other human rights activists, took their concerns to the streets to advocate for their rights and oppose the Canal. Yet, they were met with threats, harassment, and arrest.

Protests of 2018

Localized demonstrations in response to President Ortega’s actions continued until 2018 when large-scale protests exploded in the streets of Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan people responded negatively to the new changes the Ortega administration implemented to the social security and pension system. However, it wasn’t all about social security. Previously, widely censored media was combined with excessive use of force by police officers who were firing tear gas and rubber bullets at protestors. Hence, years of corruption and repression of peaceful protest made the population join the rally against the new social security measures. Human Rights Watch reported on the injured and death toll after initial protests, in which the Nicaraguan Red Cross claimed to have helped 435 injured people between April 18th and 25th, while the CIDH listed 212 people dead between April 19th and June 19th, 2018. In this same report, it is stated that Nicaraguan newspapers that spoke about the protests and the death toll were later impacted by the government’s agenda against media outlets that didn’t back up President Ortega. Independent and critical newspapers like El Nuevo Diario had been unable to access paper and supplies due to a blockade on imports imposed by the Ortega administration, said Carlos Fernando Chamorro, an exiled journalist and director of El Nuevo Diario. Chamorros’ exile follows the trend of journalists and communicators who have been imprisoned and forced to leave the country to speak against Ortega.

Daniel Ortega is sworn into Nicaragua’s leadership for his 4th presidential term.
Image 1: Daniel Ortega is sworn into Nicaragua’s leadership for his 4th presidential term. Source: Yahoo images

 

What does the Government have to say? 

The Ortega administration made several claims invoking laws that have increased monitoring, making NGOs’ work more difficult and giving the government grounds for forced dissolution. A legal framework was created to regulate organizations and individuals that receive foreign funding and utilize those funds to attempt to undermine the nation’s sovereignty and independence. Among some of the requirements, organizations need to present monthly reports of who their donors are or their source of income. For NGOs, this law means that whoever receives foreign funding or fails to report accurately would be stripped of their political personality. And this is exactly what happened. Invoking this framework, it was stated in an official release that the organizations had not complied with the law by reporting their finances, which also led to accusations based on money laundering laws.  

The pro-Ortega news outlet La Nueva Radio Ya called the 2018 protest a “coup” orchestrated by NGOs associated with organized crime and international organizations like the OEA (Organization of American States) and IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) who want to push an imperialistic agenda into the Nicaraguan people. The article dismissed the reasons for the protests as well as the number of injured and dead protestors. Instead, it focuses on the number of police who were injured and killed, claiming there was never such an assault against the national police force, which in turn shows that the protests were not peaceful. Equally, it holds that the “failed coup” led to kidnappings, assaults, torture, murder, and a great impact on the jobs and the incomes of many families.

Nicaraguans protesting in 2018 after changes to the pension system.
Image 2: Nicaraguans protested in 2018 after changes to the pension system. Source: Yahoo images

 

NGOs have faced villainization and limitations of their funding and activities because they were thought to be too politically involved. Staying on trend with other democracies and post-soviet governments, after the events of 2018, Daniel Ortega’s administration escalated violations of free speech and freedom of assembly, starting a public crackdown on individuals and groups who spoke against his leadership. In addition to the medical associations, climate change, education, and more, one type of largely targeted NGO was religious. So far, clergy members have been imprisoned and exiled, catholic churches and universities have shut down, and the legal standing of charities has been revoked. On the last round of suspensions on August 19th, 2024, hundreds of the 1,500 NGOs were small faith groups whose property may be seized.  

Ronaldo Alvarez, a Nicaraguan bishop, put a target on his back after speaking on human rights issues and the retaliation of the government against religious organizations. He was under house arrest in his home and later at his parent’s house while he was investigated for inciting violence. The priest was later accused of “conspiracy against the government, carrying out hate acts, and damaging society.” Others, such as priest Oscar Benavídez, were indicted at the prosecutor’s office on unknown charges.

Daniel Ortega is sworn into Nicaragua’s leadership for his 4th presidential term.
Image 3: Bishop Ronaldo Alvarez. Source: Ramírez 22 nic, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Reactions of the International System and Future Implications 

The United Nations General Assembly released the resolution 49/3 calling for the protection of human rights in Nicaragua. The resolution includes requests for the Government to fully cooperate with the monitoring and reporting of human rights, including the free passage of human rights groups to assess the country’s conditions. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has also pronounced itself on the crimes against humanity perpetrated in the state and encouraged accountability for human rights violations. The press release cited the impactful reports it had filled on the closure of universities, crackdown of media outlets, and repression against Indigenous and Afro-descent who opposed the government. At the same time, the IACHR followed suit; the U.S. imposed sanctions and additional actions, such as visa restrictions on Nicaraguan officials who were involved in the imprisonment and violence against religious institutions and religious leaders. The international system is concerned with the violent developments in Nicaragua and the lack of accountability. However, the ability of international instruments to punish is limited, and without the cooperation of the rest of the international community, Nicaraguans won’t receive much outside help. 

 

No NGOs to advocate for the rights of the people they protect means there are no organizations with enough structure and funding that can help people in a situation where the oppressor is the state. These groups were able to provide individuals with resources and programs that the government didn’t or was unable to. Now, their access to the safe spaces NGOs create is rapidly crumbling down. The persecution of NGOs should be addressed by a large number of actors in the international system to apply pressure on the Ortega Administration and support Nicaraguans. Although the fate of Nicaraguan-based NGOs is uncertain, check out other organizations that survived the last wave of suspensions, like El Porvenir (The Future). 

Cancel Culture: A Societal Obligation or Infringement on Free Speech?

A large majority of people spend their time online talking to friends, sharing and obtaining news, or connecting with family. Our lives being connected to the internet has forced us to learn how to network and find our way around social media platforms. Social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, facilitated the creation of “cancel culture” as we know it today. Cancel culture is used to call out behaviors and actions of individuals and corporations that convey opinions or feelings which are objectively questionable or not appropriate from a public perspective. Engaging in cancel culture typically requires a series of hashtags that proclaim an individual is being cancelled. A hashtag followed by the word cancelled or a hashtag with a person’s name followed by the phrase “isover” are the most commonly used hashtags within the tradition of cancelling. This brings us to an interesting dilemma of whether or not cancel culture is an infringement on freedom of speech.

Infringement on Freedom of Speech

Cancel culture has proven to be an effective method to identify the actions taken by individuals and corporations to rectify mistakes. Recently, in light of social justice movements such as the Black Lives Matter Movement and #MeToo; during an election year, cancel culture has been used to take down racist statues, rename buildings named after white supremacists, call out celebrities and prominent figures in society, and address “racist, sexist, or homophobic views or ideologies.”

Cancel Culture from Two Perspectives

The first perspective is often from the people who are advocating against cancel culture. These people often have large platforms, and they are upset that their freedom of speech is being infringed upon due to the policing of cancel culture and they’re afraid of being criticized for their opinions. The first perspective against cancel culture revolves around the inability to take criticism.

The second perspective involves those that do not engage in exercising their right to free speech and expression. People are afraid of the repercussions of cancel culture so they choose to not express themselves. This second perspective of cancelling is more concerning because it involves actively suppressing the beliefs, ideologies, and perspectives of people and a true cancelling of these voices.

There is a delicate balance in defending the right to freedom of speech and holding individuals and corporations responsible for their actions. The issue with cancel culture is that there is no gradation and all missteps have the same severity of punishment. People can be fired, and student admission can be halted as a result of this. In most cases, it’s a trend to be cancelled where people jump on a bandwagon without the slightest amount of information on what they are cancelling.

On the other hand, “defending speech has become a tool to bully others into silence.” Often, proponents of free speech will quote the right to speech and expression granted by the Constitution to prevent others from criticizing them. While it can be a useful tactic in the short term to support an argument, it leaves no room for compromise. This tactic makes it impossible to find the equilibrium in a conversation, which I argue can be almost as bad as cancel culture.

A protestor holds us up a fundamental part of what defines the freedom of speech. Source: theduran.com
A protestor holds up a fundamental part of what defines the freedom of speech. Source: theduran.com

A Different Option: Call Out Culture

More often than not, free speech is not being infringed upon. It is often a case of what boundaries are being set to speak in a public setting and if those boundaries are acceptable. While it is our responsibility to be open and receptive of opposing views, these views are not always in concordance to what a majority of people might believe. This gives leeway for a new type of action where the public can participate in call out culture instead of cancel culture. But before calling out, it is still important to give the opponent a chance to respond and hear their responses to avoid regressing and participating in what can be a very toxic culture. Responses do not need to include canceling, suppressing, or removing, but can include educating, accepting, and forgiving. This gives room where we can set boundaries safely and simply say, “I do not agree with you,” but even with this it is very situational where some actions are above disagreeing and need to be addressed properly.

For example, in 2016 a Pepsi advertisement featuring model and influence Kendall Jenner was incredibly tone deaf, and downplayed the severity of protests and the Black Lives Matter movement. The outcry against the ad prompted a response from Pepsi and Jenner apologizing for the missing the mark on trying to project “unity, peace, and understanding,” and for putting Jenner is this position. The public seemed to not hold Pepsi to the same standards that Jenner was held, and to this day still is, and essentially made her accountable for the apology, when every one that participated in the situation and production should have also been held responsible. On the other hand, Larry Nassar, who was national team doctor for USA gymnastics, was charged for hundred of cases of sexual assault under the pretext medical treatment for the athletes. Him, his actions, and his behavior harmed hundreds of lives and families, and so the public outcry against the individual, his actions, and the system that supported him was warranted and justified in a situation. Did he deserve to get cancelled? I think most people would argue yes, in a situation that is very black and white both morally and legally. Then the question becomes one of gradation. Did Jenner, a decent person often on the right path, deserve to get cancelled and held to the same standards of accountability, just as Nassar, and risk facing a stagnant and declining career for a misstep? For this, I think most people would argue no, because, yes while the ad was harmful to several communities, it was no where near the severity of Nassar’s actions. Yes, her participation needed to be addressed, but did it warrant “cancelling” a targeted individual because of their background instead of education them?

How to avoid cancel culture?

  • Do your own research on the situation or individual – the one being called out or cancelled as well as the individual doing the calling out or cancelling.
  • Evaluate the gradation and the consequence of the action in question, and ask yourself if cancel culture actually works.
  • Try to address how toxic it can be for your mental health and identify if there is another way to help.
  • If you do decide to engage, make sure to call out and educate instead of cancel.