DEVIL CITY

I visit devil city, loveliest ruined city in sea coast,

All souls fled in 1964 with weave, and invasion swept for no cost;

Amidst weaves bowers thy tyrant’s invisible hand,

Suddenly turned into graves, saddens all green island:

I talk to deadly souls, they only knew after life it should happened;

Creator decided his plan, which human know not what will happen.

People turn the devil city into tourism but her soul warn,

My island, my people would controlled my nature she warned.

Confused to happy or cloaked in a sunny weave but I recall;

All the history make the world more beautiful when I recollect.

Moldering wall welcoming strongly like a dying soldier;

Everybody feels home in scary eyes examined by old soldiers.

The guard-men herd the hollow echoing sound;

Islander choice is ready go with the sound.

Around the island is fishes home but hard to get what they deserved;

Water is surrounded the island but they hardly find water like in desert.

Film star dance for depart soul in the devil city and her fames grows;

Beauty speak the sweetest sound where the islander can’t denied her growth.

I tested the water and sand; gives the reality of her best companion;

They think me as foreigner, but we all belong to mother Earth in my opinion.

I hard not the birth singing nor the fishes playing, but the sea weave always does;

I know the joyful beautiful girl enjoying in the weave, even the weave is happy with her.

Her beauty is design in an artless way, her joys compared to happiest moment

Advertisements

INDIAN GREATEST MISTAKE IN MY TIMES:

I come from the beautiful place called nagalim and I know the greatest mistake India has done in my time, that she colonized Nagalim and enforced Indian constitution forcefully by violating Human Right in every part of Naga inhabited areas and forced the Nagas to become a part of India by using Arm forces since 1951 while Nagas want separate state from India and position is clear for both sides, but Indian  disrespect the Right of the Nagas, their interest, Customary Law and constitution of the Nagas; she kept on forcing to NAGAS and trying for more than 60 years which is totally unacceptable as a human being, because every nation have to respect the Historical Right of the other nation and one state can’t rules the other state by force, in 21st century. India politicians disrespect the Naga Historical Right and the Political Right which is the Indian greatest mistake I ever seen.

Allow me to give evidence for this claim in respect of ‘freedom of speech’; The Indian state has make a great mistake that have been left behind by British in Naga inhabited areas, apart from unable to maintaining peace and harmony, Human Right Violation, increasing poverty and unemployment and unconstitutionally ruling the state. When we recall the Naga History, Indian politician lack of honesty and sincerity to nagas people, which lead to bloodshed of thousand innocent Nagas, just because of their dirty politics; first plebiscite of India was conducted after her independent in Nagaland in the year of 1951 where 99.9 voted for free Nagas under the leadership of A.Z. Phizo president of Naga Nation Council (NNC) and guardian of GoI, right after that plebiscite, India state declared war on Nagas. Indian betray the NNC and plebiscite conducted by two party, by ignoring the result and never talk about that anymore. Naga Nation Council (NNC) which was form on 1918 for the cause of Nagas has boycott the first general election in 1952 and extended to boycott all India offices. Indian sent thousands of Indian armies to colonized Nagalim by violating Human Right as well as the Right of Nagas. 1n 1958, 11th September the Arm Force Special Power Act was passed and enforced in Naga inhabited areas as disturbed areas and conduct many operation and under ‘Blue Birth Operation’ and ‘Force Labors’ many Nagas have been killed, raged, women were rapes, tortured, burn down many houses and did many inhuman action, where the justice was very far for Nagas. GoI and her army men violated countless Human Right in all part of the Naga inhabited areas where they have right to killed the civilian and carry out everything they want under the Law of AFSPA and Sec 144 CrPC, where there was no Justice for Naga people at all under these law. The inhuman action of Indian forces to the Naga people were over the limitation which the NNC expected , NNC calls all the tribe leaders come together to form an organization and started embracing weapons by thousands of youths including children, sacrificing their childhood for protecting our people. Thus formed Naga Army to protect the Motherland of Nagas, which is supported by civil society of Nagas.

The cease-fire agreement sign between NSCN and Government of India signed on July 25 1997 and continue till date in Prime Minister Level but the government of India are not sincere in the politics toward Nagas.

July 25, 1997 Cease-fire agreement signed between Government of India and NSCN-IM
August 1, 1997 Cease-fire comes into effect
October 29, 1997 Cease-fire agreement extended for three months
April 28, 1988. Cease fire extended for three months, commencing on May 1
August 31, 1998 Cease-fire extended for one year
April 1, 1999. Cease-fire extended for six months from April 15
August 1, 1999 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 31, 2000 Cease-fire extended for another year
January 13, 2001 NSCN-IM leaders and Government of India representatives met in New Delhi to finalize “The Revised Agreed Ground Rules”
June 14, 2001 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 11, 2002 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 17, 2003 Cease-fire extended by another year
July 30, 2004 The Union Government extends by another year the cease-fire with the NSCN-IM following talks with the outfit’s leadership in Chiang Mai, Thailand
July 30, 2005 Cease-fire extended by six months
January 31, 2006 Cease-fire extended for another six months
July 31, 2006 Cease-fire extended for a period of one year
July 31, 2007 Cease-fire extended indefinitely.

 India can’t denied the true fact of the Naga history and political Right, so India Government recognized the Unique History and Political Right of the Nagas, on July 11 2002, they also review the 16 point agreement of 1960 and formation of Nagaland in 1962; where the Nagas have their own father of Nation called A.Z. Phizo, even Indian Official respect his tomb in Kohima and the talk in Prime Minister Level symbolized that Nagas are not Indian because in one country there cannot be two Prime Minister.  16 years round of peace talk with GoI without any solution is discouraging. We can recollect, before British came to our land, Nagas have village sovereignty and we are happy with that system but since British control our nation and lather pass their power to India and still we are under the control of other nation. If Naga don’t want to be a part of India than they can’t force us to do so. I am really fed up and I cannot trust to Indian politician anymore because of their insincerities and dirty politics. Government of India need to respect Human Right, I belief Naga sovereignty is a Right of Nagas, so it is a part of Human Right for Nagas.

Indian state have the second largest population in the world next to china, where Nagas and North-East people were highly discriminated in all the major cities of India by numerous numbers of India citizens. Where there the Indian state has failed to protect the Nagas in her state. Her citizen said to the Nagas people that, you are from china? Or Nepal, or from Japan or from Korea? They know that Nagas in Indian cities are not Indian, and all the citizens of India were the proved, but few politician want Nagas to be a part of India for some reason like securities purposed and territory integrity. Indian were afraid of foreign invasion from North-East sides, where they are weak in military power to protect from country like China. India colonized the Nagas forcefully for they were insecure from Chinese power and want to expand her territories, while she failed to give safety to the Naga people. So, my question is why the Indian government forcefully taken the sovereignty of the Nagas like the British did to India in 19th century? And why they cannot protect the Naga when they want us to be her part, why she become the enemies of the Nagas by killing the civilians and given away the Nagas land to Burma? Is the Indian afraid of her neighboring state, thereby maintaining her protection from them, by hurting immensely to Naga nation? Is not the Student and the workers were discriminated everywhere in all part of India? We were living peacefully in our home town before, but today we are not safe in our own place so-called Nagalim because of your mistake effected deeply to all the Nagas. Nagas will always remember your mistake, which Indian thinks as legal. Why we can say that the Indian respect to Nagas, when her Army can violate the Human Right in Nagaland and other part of Naga inhabited areas? Indian colonized the whole Naga inhabited areas some year back and now I want it back again from her hand. We can’t live under the tyranny rules of India, ruling in my land against the law of my land which is totally unacceptable at all. I want all my people to be safe in my land not to be killed without reason or trail but your law did (your law like AFSPA or Sec 144 CrPC act), it had killed many Naga and compensated for some amount of money for precious life, which is not in my customary law. I want my land to be developed like other country does but not to be function my government under your constitution which is presently functioning under your biased law where my people suffer enough because of the corruption of your government in Nagalim. Indian constitution is no longer acceptable for the Nagas because it is not our constitution but we have our own constitution; and if the Government of India is going to solve the Naga political solution under Indian constitution then we the Nagas will never ever accept that, because there is no Nagas consent in making the constitution of India, we will find the solution which will bring us permanent solution for all the Nagas in our satisfaction but not in under Indian constitution as Indian politician are thinking. Nagas will respect India as our neighbors always but we will do anything to protect our birth Right, Historical Truth, Political Right and Sovereignty. However the Indian denied all this Right of Nagas in Nagalim, discriminated Nagas citizen in all the part of Indian and Indian don’t want to declare Nagas sovereignty to the world but try their best to forces Nagas to become a part of India which is the Indian greatest mistake.

INDIAN GREATEST MISTAKE IN MY TIMES:

I come from the beautiful place called nagalim and I know the greatest mistake India has done in my time, that she colonized Nagalim and enforced Indian constitution forcefully by violating Human Right in every part of Naga inhabited areas and forced the Nagas to become a part of India by using Arm forces since 1951 while Nagas want separate state from India and position is clear for both sides, but Indian  disrespect the Right of the Nagas, their interest, Customary Law and constitution of the Nagas; she kept on forcing to NAGAS and trying for more than 60 years which is totally unacceptable as a human being, because every nation have to respect the Historical Right of the other nation and one state can’t rules the other state by force, in 21st century. India politicians disrespect the Naga Historical Right and the Political Right which is the Indian greatest mistake I ever seen.

Allow me to give evidence for this claim in respect of ‘freedom of speech’; The Indian state has make a great mistake that have been left behind by British in Naga inhabited areas, apart from unable to maintaining peace and harmony, Human Right Violation, increasing poverty and unemployment and unconstitutionally ruling the state. When we recall the Naga History, Indian politician lack of honesty and sincerity to nagas people, which lead to bloodshed of thousand innocent Nagas, just because of their dirty politics; first plebiscite of India was conducted after her independent in Nagaland in the year of 1951 where 99.9 voted for free Nagas under the leadership of A.Z. Phizo president of Naga Nation Council (NNC) and guardian of GoI, right after that plebiscite, India state declared war on Nagas. Indian betray the NNC and plebiscite conducted by two party, by ignoring the result and never talk about that anymore. Naga Nation Council (NNC) which was form on 1918 for the cause of Nagas has boycott the first general election in 1952 and extended to boycott all India offices. Indian sent thousands of Indian armies to colonized Nagalim by violating Human Right as well as the Right of Nagas. 1n 1958, 11th September the Arm Force Special Power Act was passed and enforced in Naga inhabited areas as disturbed areas and conduct many operation and under ‘Blue Birth Operation’ and ‘Force Labors’ many Nagas have been killed, raged, women were rapes, tortured, burn down many houses and did many inhuman action, where the justice was very far for Nagas. GoI and her army men violated countless Human Right in all part of the Naga inhabited areas where they have right to killed the civilian and carry out everything they want under the Law of AFSPA and Sec 144 CrPC, where there was no Justice for Naga people at all under these law. The inhuman action of Indian forces to the Naga people were over the limitation which the NNC expected , NNC calls all the tribe leaders come together to form an organization and started embracing weapons by thousands of youths including children, sacrificing their childhood for protecting our people. Thus formed Naga Army to protect the Motherland of Nagas, which is supported by civil society of Nagas.

The cease-fire agreement sign between NSCN and Government of India signed on July 25 1997 and continue till date in Prime Minister Level but the government of India are not sincere in the politics toward Nagas.

July 25, 1997 Cease-fire agreement signed between Government of India and NSCN-IM
August 1, 1997 Cease-fire comes into effect
October 29, 1997 Cease-fire agreement extended for three months
April 28, 1988. Cease fire extended for three months, commencing on May 1
August 31, 1998 Cease-fire extended for one year
April 1, 1999. Cease-fire extended for six months from April 15
August 1, 1999 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 31, 2000 Cease-fire extended for another year
January 13, 2001 NSCN-IM leaders and Government of India representatives met in New Delhi to finalize “The Revised Agreed Ground Rules”
June 14, 2001 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 11, 2002 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 17, 2003 Cease-fire extended by another year
July 30, 2004 The Union Government extends by another year the cease-fire with the NSCN-IM following talks with the outfit’s leadership in Chiang Mai, Thailand
July 30, 2005 Cease-fire extended by six months
January 31, 2006 Cease-fire extended for another six months
July 31, 2006 Cease-fire extended for a period of one year
July 31, 2007 Cease-fire extended indefinitely.

 India can’t denied the true fact of the Naga history and political Right, so India Government recognized the Unique History and Political Right of the Nagas, on July 11 2002, they also review the 16 point agreement of 1960 and formation of Nagaland in 1962; where the Nagas have their own father of Nation called A.Z. Phizo, even Indian Official respect his tomb in Kohima and the talk in Prime Minister Level symbolized that Nagas are not Indian because in one country there cannot be two Prime Minister.  16 years round of peace talk with GoI without any solution is discouraging. We can recollect, before British came to our land, Nagas have village sovereignty and we are happy with that system but since British control our nation and lather pass their power to India and still we are under the control of other nation. If Naga don’t want to be a part of India than they can’t force us to do so. I am really fed up and I cannot trust to Indian politician anymore because of their insincerities and dirty politics. Government of India need to respect Human Right, I belief Naga sovereignty is a Right of Nagas, so it is a part of Human Right for Nagas.

Indian state have the second largest population in the world next to china, where Nagas and North-East people were highly discriminated in all the major cities of India by numerous numbers of India citizens. Where there the Indian state has failed to protect the Nagas in her state. Her citizen said to the Nagas people that, you are from china? Or Nepal, or from Japan or from Korea? They know that Nagas in Indian cities are not Indian, and all the citizens of India were the proved, but few politician want Nagas to be a part of India for some reason like securities purposed and territory integrity. Indian were afraid of foreign invasion from North-East sides, where they are weak in military power to protect from country like China. India colonized the Nagas forcefully for they were insecure from Chinese power and want to expand her territories, while she failed to give safety to the Naga people. So, my question is why the Indian government forcefully taken the sovereignty of the Nagas like the British did to India in 19th century? And why they cannot protect the Naga when they want us to be her part, why she become the enemies of the Nagas by killing the civilians and given away the Nagas land to Burma? Is the Indian afraid of her neighboring state, thereby maintaining her protection from them, by hurting immensely to Naga nation? Is not the Student and the workers were discriminated everywhere in all part of India? We were living peacefully in our home town before, but today we are not safe in our own place so-called Nagalim because of your mistake effected deeply to all the Nagas. Nagas will always remember your mistake, which Indian thinks as legal. Why we can say that the Indian respect to Nagas, when her Army can violate the Human Right in Nagaland and other part of Naga inhabited areas? Indian colonized the whole Naga inhabited areas some year back and now I want it back again from her hand. We can’t live under the tyranny rules of India, ruling in my land against the law of my land which is totally unacceptable at all. I want all my people to be safe in my land not to be killed without reason or trail but your law did (your law like AFSPA or Sec 144 CrPC act), it had killed many Naga and compensated for some amount of money for precious life, which is not in my customary law. I want my land to be developed like other country does but not to be function my government under your constitution which is presently functioning under your biased law where my people suffer enough because of the corruption of your government in Nagalim. Indian constitution is no longer acceptable for the Nagas because it is not our constitution but we have our own constitution; and if the Government of India is going to solve the Naga political solution under Indian constitution then we the Nagas will never ever accept that, because there is no Nagas consent in making the constitution of India, we will find the solution which will bring us permanent solution for all the Nagas in our satisfaction but not in under Indian constitution as Indian politician are thinking. Nagas will respect India as our neighbors always but we will do anything to protect our birth Right, Historical Truth, Political Right and Sovereignty. However the Indian denied all this Right of Nagas in Nagalim, discriminated Nagas citizen in all the part of Indian and Indian don’t want to declare Nagas sovereignty to the world but try their best to forces Nagas to become a part of India which is the Indian greatest mistake.

Citizen must have Freedom of Speech in the State (Freedom of speech by country)

Every human deserves Freedom of Speech, It is a part of Human Right and all the Human must respect the Human Right as a Human in all the state.

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. “Speech” is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see propaganda model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies.

International law

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that:

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.[1]

Technically, as a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly rather than a treaty, it is not legally binding in its entirety on members of the UN. Furthermore, whilst some of its provisions are considered to form part of customary international law, there is dispute as to which. Freedom of speech is granted unambiguous protection in international law by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is binding on around 150 nations.

In adopting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Australia and the Netherlands insisted on reservations to Article 19 insofar as it might be held to affect their systems of regulating and licensing broadcasting.

1.African continent

Protesters use freedom of speech to hold a vigil in front of the Zimbabwean Embassy in London, 2005.

The majority of African constitutions provide legal protection for freedom of speech. However, these rights are exercised inconsistently in practice. The replacement of authoritarian regimes in Kenya and Ghana has substantially improved the situation in those countries. On the other hand, Eritrea allows no independent media and uses draft evasion as a pretext to crack down on any dissent, spoken or otherwise. One of the poorest and smallest nations in Africa, Eritrea is now the largest prison for journalists; since 2001, fourteen journalists have been imprisoned in unknown places without a trial. Sudan, Libya, and Equatorial Guinea also have repressive laws and practices. In addition, many state radio stations (which are the primary source of news for illiterate people) are under tight control and programs, especially talk shows providing a forum to complain about the government, are often censored. Also countries like Somalia and Egypt provide legal protection for freedom of speech but it is not used publicly.

See also: Censorship in Algeria, Censorship in Tunisia.

South Africa

South Africa is probably the most liberal in granting freedom of speech, however in light of South Africa’s racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.[3] Freedom of speech and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the South African Bill of Rights, chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:

§ 16 Freedom of expression

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes-

(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
(2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to-

(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

In 2005, the South African Constitutional Court set an international precedent in the case of Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International when it found that the small culture jamming company Laugh-it-Off’s right to freedom of expression outweighs the protection of trademark of the world’s second largest brewery.[4]

Sudan

Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Sudan under Blasphemy laws.[5]

Tunisia

Despite the Tunisian revolution that led the Arab Spring, freedom of speech is still a controversial issue and a subject of uncertainty. Artists, journalists, and citizens still face many kinds of harassment when they try to express their ideas freely. Making things more complicated is a lack of experience and traditions in the field of free speech on the part of Tunisian justice and judges.[citation needed]

On 13 June 2013 Tunisian Rapper, Alaa Yacoubi (aka “Weld El 15”), was imprisoned and given a two-year jail sentence because his song “El boulisia Kleb” (“Cops Are Dogs”) was considered an incitement to violence and hatred. The court judgement was the subject of an appeal and the decision was announced for 2 July 2013, while Alaa Yaacoubi remains in prison.[6]

2.Asia

Several Asian countries provide formal legal guarantees of freedom of speech to their citizens. These are not, however, implemented in practice in some countries. Barriers to freedom of speech are common and vary drastically between ASEAN countries. They include the use of brutal force in cracking down on bloggers in Burma, Vietnam andCambodia, Les Majeste in Thailand, the use of libel and internal security laws in Singapore and Malaysia, and the killing of journalists in the Philippines.[7] Freedom of expression is significantly limited in China, North Korea, and South Korea.[8] Freedom of speech has improved in Myanmar in recent years, but significant challenges remain.[9] There is no clear correlation between legal and constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and actual practices among Asian nations.

Hong Kong

Under “Chapter III: Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents” (第三章: 居民的基本權利和義務) of the Hong Kong Basic Law:[10][11]

Article 27: Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.
第二十七條: 香港居民享有言論、新聞、出版的自由,結社、集會、遊行、示威的自由,組織和參加工會、罷工的權利和自由。
Article 30: The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law. No department or individual may, on any grounds, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of communication of residents except that the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences.
第三十條: 香港居民的通訊自由和通訊秘密受法律的保護。除因公共安全和追查刑事犯罪的需要,由有關機關依照法律程序對通訊進行檢查外,任何部門或個人不得以任何理由侵犯居民的通訊自由和通訊秘密。

India

The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen and there have been landmark cases in the Indian Supreme Court that have affirmed the nation’s policy of allowing free press and freedom of expression to every citizen. In India, citizens are free to criticize politics, politicians, bureaucracy and policies. The freedoms are comparable to those in the United States and Western European democracies. Article 19 of the Indian constitution states that:

All citizens shall have the right —

  1. to freedom of speech and expression;
  2. to assemble peaceably and without arms;
  3. to form associations or unions;
  4. to move freely throughout the territory of India;
  5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
  6. to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.[12]

These rights are limited so as not to affect:

  • The integrity of India
  • The security of the State
  • Friendly relations with foreign States
  • Public order
  • Decency or morality
  • Contempt of court
  • Defamation or incitement to an offence[12]

Freedom of speech is restricted by the National Security Act of 1980 and in the past, by the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) of 2001, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) from 1985 to 1995, and similar measures. Freedom of speech is also restricted by Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with sedition and makes any speech or expression which brings contempt towards government punishable by imprisonment extending from three years to life.[13] In 1962 the Supreme Court of India held this section to be constitutionally valid in the case Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar.[14]

Indonesia

Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Indonesia under blasphemy laws.[15]

Iran

Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Iran.[16]

According to the Press Freedom Index for 2007, Iran ranked 166th out of 169 nations. Only three other countries – Eritrea, North Korea, and Turkmenistan – had more restrictions on news media freedom than Iran.[17] The government of Ali Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council imprisoned 50 journalists in 2007 and all but eliminated press freedom.[18] Reporters Without Borders (RWB) has dubbed Iran the “Middle East’s biggest prison for journalists.”[19]

Israel

On 11 July 2011, the Knesset passed a law making it a civil offence to publicly call for a boycott against Israel,[20] defined as “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage”.[21] According to the law anyone calling for a boycott can be sued and forced to pay compensation, regardless of actual damages.[20] At the discretion of a government minister, they may also be prevented from bidding in government tenders.[20]

Japan

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Chapter III, Article 21 of the Japanese constitution.[22] There are few exemptions to this right and a very broad spectrum of opinion is tolerated by the media and authorities.[citation needed]

Article 21:[22][23]

Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. (集会、結社及び言論、出版その他一切の表現の自由は、これを保障する。?)
No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated. (検閲は、これをしてはならない。通信の秘密は、これを侵してはならない。?)

Malaysia

In Malaysia, “God” and “Prophet Muhammad” are used by politicians to answer to the peoples and the media. In May 2008, the Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi put forward a headline “Media should practice voluntary self-censorship”,[24] saying there is no such thing as unlimited freedom and the media should not be abashed of “voluntary self-censorship” to respect cultural norms, different societies hold different values and while it might be acceptable in secular countries to depict a caricature of Prophet Muhammad, it was clearly not the case here. “It is not a moral or media sin to respect prophets”. He said the Government also wanted the media not to undermine racial and religious harmony to the extent that it could threaten national security and public order. “I do not see these laws as curbs on freedom. Rather, they are essential for a healthy society.”[25]

Pakistan

Articles 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press with certain restrictions.[26] Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Pakistan.[27] [28]

People’s Republic of China (mainland)

Article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China claims that:

English: Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.[29]
Chinese: 中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威的自由。[30]

There is heavy government involvement in the media, with many of the largest media organizations being run by the Communist-Party-led government. References todemocracy, the free Tibet movement, Taiwan as an independent country, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the 2014 Hong Kong protests, the Arab Spring, certain religious organizations and anything questioning the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China are banned from use in public and blocked on the Internet. Web portals includingMicrosoft‘s MSN have come under criticism for aiding in these practices, including banning the word “democracy” from its chat-rooms in China.

Due to close geographical proximity to Hong Kong, parts of southern China are able to receive broadcast signals from television channels in Hong Kong, where China’s censorship does not apply. However, comments that the Communist Party feel uncomfortable with are cut out and replaced with TV commercials before they can reach consumers’ TVs in mainland China. Very few Western films are given permission to play in Chinese theatres, although widespread unlicensed copying of these films makes them widely available.

Philippines

Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines specifies that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of expression. However, some laws limit this freedom, for example:

  • Certain sections of the Flag and Heraldic Code require particular expressions and prohibit other expressions.[31]
  • Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines criminalizes libel and slander by act or deed (slander by deed is defined as “any act … which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person.”), providing penalties of fine or imprisonment. In 2012, acting on a complaint by an imprisoned broadcaster who dramatised a newspaper account reporting that a particular politician was seen running naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband of the woman with whom he was said to have spent the night, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, commenting that “Defamations laws should not … stifle freedom of expression” and that “Penal defamation laws should include defense of truth.”[32][33]
  • Blasphemy is an offense against decency and good customs which is publishable by a prison term, a fine, or both.[34] Other offenses against decency and good customs include: public displays or exhibitions which glorify criminals or condone crimes, serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography, offend any race or religion, tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs, and are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts; publishing or selling obscene literature; selling, giving away, or exhibiting films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals; publicly expounding or proclaiming doctrines openly contrary to public morals; and highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of the code.[35]

Saudi Arabia

Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Saudi Arabia.[36]

South Korea

The South Korean constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly for its nationals. However, behaviors or speeches in favor of the North Korean regime, communism or Japan can be punished by the National Security Law, though in recent years prosecutions under this law have been rare.

There is a strict election law that takes effect a few months before elections which prohibits most speech that either supports or criticizes a particular candidate or party. One can be prosecuted for political parodies and even for wearing a particular color (usually the color of a party).[37]

The UN Human Rights Commission expressed concerns about South Korea’s deterioration of online free speech.[38]

Thailand

While the Thai constitution provides for freedom of expression, by law the government may restrict freedom of expression to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others, protect public morals, and prevent insults to Buddhism. The lese-majeste law makes it a crime, punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment for each offense, to criticize, insult, or threaten the king, queen, royal heir apparent, or regent. Defamation is a criminal offense and parties that criticize the government or related businesses may be sued, setting the stage for self-censorship.[39]

Censorship expanded considerably starting in 2003 during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration and after the 2006 military coup. Prosecutions for lese-majeste offenses increased significantly starting in 2006. Journalists are generally free to comment on government activities and institutions without fear of official reprisal, but they occasionally practice self-censorship, particularly with regard to the monarchy and national security. Broadcast media are subject to government censorship, both directly and indirectly, and self-censorship is evident. Under the Emergency Decree in the three southernmost provinces, the government may restrict print and broadcast media, online news, and social media networks there.[39]

Thailand practices selective Internet filtering in the political, social, and Internet tools areas, with no evidence of filtering in the conflict/security area in 2011.[40][41][42] Thailand is on Reporters Without Borders list of countries under surveillance in 2011[43] and is listed as “Not Free” in the Freedom on the Net 2011 report by Freedom House, which cites substantial political censorship and the arrest of bloggers and other online users.[44]

United Arab Emirates

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), it is a crime to use a computer network to “damage the national unity or social peace”.[45] The law has been used to convict people for criticising state security inve.

3.Australia

Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth. There is however an implied freedom of speech that was recognised in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation[47]

In 1992 the High Court of Australia judged in the case of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth that the Australian Constitution, by providing for a system of representative and responsible government, implied the protection of political communication as an essential element of that system. This freedom of political communication is not a broad freedom of speech as in other countries, but rather a freedom whose purpose is only to protect political free speech. This freedom of political free speech is a shield against government prosecution, not a shield against private prosecution (civil law). It is also less a causal mechanism in itself, rather than simply a boundary which can be adjudged to be breached. Despite the court’s ruling, however, not all political speech appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that would be protected in other democratic countries such as the United States[citation needed].

In 1996, Albert Langer was imprisoned for advocating that voters fill out their ballot papers in a way that was invalid.[48] Amnesty International declared Langer to be a prisoner of conscience.[49] The section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this way has since been repealed and the law now says only that it is an offence to print or publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter.

The Howard Government re-introduced sedition law, which criminalises some forms of expression. Media Watch ran a series on the amendments on ABC television.[50]

In 2006, CSIRO senior scientist Graeme Pearman was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming.[51] The Howard Government was accused of limiting the speech of Pearman and other scientists.

In 2010, journalist Andrew Bolt was sued in the Federal Court over two posts on his Herald Sun blog in 2009. Bolt was found guilty of breaching the racial discrimination act in 2011 following comments regarded to be representative of a “eugenic” approach to aboriginal identity.[52] This prompted the federal government to propose changes to the Racial Discrimination Act but has met with stiff resistance.[53]

In 2014 the Australian High Court issued a blanket media gag order on the reporting of a high profile international corruption case.[54][55] The gag order prevents the publishing of articles regarding bribes presented to high-ranking officials of Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam by senior executives of the Reserve Bank of Australia in order to secure the adoption of the Australian invented and produced polymer banknote technology.

4.Europe

Council of Europe

Charitable organizations can use the freedom of speech to campaign andlobby government ministers.

Local issues are often the subject of free speech.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), signed on 4 November 1950, guarantees a broad range of human rights to inhabitants of member countries of the Council of Europe, which includes almost all European nations. These rights include Article 10, which entitles all citizens to free expression. Echoing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this provides that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgements finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgements, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained.

The Convention also includes some other restrictions:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

For example, the Council of Europe Explanatory Report of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime states the “European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the denial or revision of ‘clearly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust – […] would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17′ of the ECHR” in the Lehideux and Isorni v. France judgment of 23 September 1998.[56]

Each party to the Convention must alter its laws and policies to conform with the Convention. Some, such as Ireland or the United Kingdom, have expressly incorporated the Convention into their domestic laws. The guardian of the Convention is the European Court of Human Rights. This court has heard many cases relating to freedom of speech, including cases that have tested the professional obligations of confidentiality of journalists and lawyers, and the application of defamation law, a recent example being the so-called “McLibel case“.

European Union

Citizens of the European Union enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. Currently, all members of the European Union are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights in addition to having various constitutional and legal rights to freedom of expression at the national level. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Unionhas been legally binding since December 1, 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon became fully ratified and effective. Article 11 of the Charter, in part mirroring the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, provides that

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

The European Court of Justice takes into account both the Charter and the Convention when making its rulings. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union accedes to the European Convention as an entity in its own right, making the Convention binding not only on the governments of the member states but also on the supranational institutions of the EU.

Czech Republic

Orthodox priest Libor Halík with a group of followers. Halík has been chanting daily for over five years against abortion via megaphone in front of a maternity hospital in Brno,Moravia.[57]

Punk band Visací zámek which composed a popular song “The President Is a Faggot” about Václav Klaus, 2003-2013 Czech President.[58]

Freedom of speech in the Czech Republic is guaranteed by the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms, which has the same legal standing as the Czech Constitution. It is the first freedom of the charter’s second division – political rights. It reads as follows:[59]

Article 17

(1) The freedom of expression and the right to information are guaranteed.
(2) Everyone has the right to express their opinion in speech, in writing, in the press, in pictures, or in any other form, as well as freely to seek, receive, and disseminate ideas and information irrespective of the frontiers of the State.
(3) Censorship is not permitted.
(4) The freedom of expression and the right to seek and disseminate information may be limited by law in the case of measures necessary in a democratic society for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, the security of the State, public security, public health, and morals.
(5) State bodies and territorial self-governing bodies are obliged, in an appropriate manner, to provide information on their activities. Conditions therefore and the implementation thereof shall be provided for by law.

Specific limitations of the freedom of speech within the meaning of Article 17(4) may be found in the Criminal Code as well in other enactments. These include the prohibition of:

  • unauthorized handling of personal information (Article 180 of the Criminal Code),[60] which protects the right to privacy,
  • defamation (Article 184 of the Criminal Code),[61]
  • dissemination of pornography depicting disrespect to a human, abuse of an animal, or dissemination of any pornography to children (Article 191 of the Criminal Code),[62]
  • seducing to use or propagation of use of addictive substances other than alcohol (Article 287 of the Criminal Code),[63] which protects public health,
  • denigration of a nation, race, ethnic or other group of people (Article 355 of the Criminal Code),[64] i.e. hate speech,
  • inciting of hatred towards a group of people or inciting limitation of their civil rights (Article 356 of the Criminal Code),[65]
  • spreading of scaremongering information (Article 357 of the Criminal Code),[66] e.g. fake bomb alerts,
  • public incitement of perpetration of a crime (Article 364 of the Criminal Code),[67]
  • public approval of a felony crime (Article 365 of the Criminal Code),[68]
  • public display of sympathy towards a movement oriented at curbing rights of the people (Article 404 of the Criminal Code),[69] e.g. propagation of hate-groups,
  • public denial, questioning, endorsement or vindication of genocide (Article 405 of the Criminal Code),[70] e.g. Auschwitz lie,
  • incitement of an offensive war (Article 407 of the Criminal Code).[71]

Most of the limitations of the free speech in the Czech Republic aim at protection of rights of individuals or minority groups. Unlike in some other European countries there are no limits on speech criticizing or denigrating government, public officials or state symbols.

Denmark

Freedom of speech in Denmark is granted by Grundloven:[72]

§ 77 Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.

Hate speech is illegal according to the Danish Penal Code § 266(b):[73][74]

Any person who, publicly or with the intention of disseminating … makes a statement … threatening (trues), insulting (forhånes), or degrading (nedværdiges) a group of persons on account of their race, national or ethnic origin or belief shall be liable to a fine or to simple detention or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

The 1991 Media Liability Act (Medieansvarsloven) creates criminal and civil mandates that mass media content and conduct must be consistent with journalism ethics and theright of reply, and also created the Press Council of Denmark (Pressenævnet) which can impose fines and imprisonment up to 4 months.[75]

Finland

Finland has been ranked in the Press Freedom Index as the country with the best press freedom in 2002–2006, 2009–2010, and 2012–2014. According to the Constitution, everyone has freedom of expression, entailing the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.[76] The Finnish mass-media has a own self-regulatory organ which regulates the ethics of the press.

A demonstration or other public assembly requires no permission from the police or other authorities. If a public meeting is held outdoors, the police must be notified of the event no later than six hours before the assembly is scheduled to begin, but the police have no authority to prohibit the event.[77]

Defamation is a crime only if the target is a private person. Defamation of corporations is never a crime unless it’s covered by competition regulations or similar legislation. Sentences have never been given for publishing pro-drug propaganda.

There are no restrictions regarding obscenity. It’s illegal to display obscene visual material in a public place in a manner that is likely to cause public offense.[78] In practice this means that obscene photos and videos may be shown only in places where they are expected to be seen, while there is no restrictions on obscene literature. Drawings and animations showing child pornography are legal. While bestiality is legal as such, videos and photographs showing sex with animals are banned.[78] Motion pictures showing “brutal” violence may not be kept accessible to the public or distributed if the display of violence is not deemed necessary for informative or artistic purposes, possession of such audiovisual recordings being still legal.[78] A Finn was sentenced in 2009 to 40 days of probation after keeping Radical Islamistic execution videos on his website.[79] Finland had a film censorship board until 2001 when the scope of the board was limited to giving age ratings to movies. After the abolition of film censorship there are no restrictions on sex shown in movies regardless of the venue of display, violent pornography being the only exception to the rule.[78] After the abolishment of film censorship, banning movies that contain brutal violence has been extremely rare.

Disparagement of the flag of Finland is an offense that can be punished with a fine. The ban specifically includes using a flag with unauthorized addenda.[80] This is the only law restricting disparagement of the state and its symbols and institutions.

Blasphemy and hate speech are forbidden. The blasphemy law applies to all religions. The hate speech law protects people of different sexual orientations, races, skin colors, places of birth, national or ethnic origins, religions or beliefs and disabled people.[81] The sentence for committing these crimes could theoretically be imprisonment, but during the modern juridical history the sentence has always been a fine.

The hate speech law is relatively lax. It prohibits only threatening, insulting and defaming the aforementioned groups, while criticism and expression of opinions against these groups of people are not per se forbidden. For instance, unlike in 16 other European countries and Canada, denying the Holocaust is legal. During the years 2000–2013 there were 21 successful court cases regarding hate speech. The expressions ruled illegal include stating that some groups are trash, a group is a racial monster that needs to be destroyed, and comparing asylum seekers to animals and saying that violence against foreigners is acceptable.[82]

A Finnish member of EU parliament Jussi Halla-aho was sentenced for both blasphemy and hate speech in 2012 by the Supreme Court after saying that “Islam is a paedophiliareligion” and “it’s a national and possibly even genetic special characteristic of the Somali people to rob passers-by and to be parasites living on the tax-payers’ money”.[83]According to Jussi Halla-aho himself, the latter was meant to criticize the fact that saying that Finns drink a lot and then kill people due to possibly genetic reasons was held to be in accordance of the ethics of the press by the self-regulatory organ of the mass-media.[84] Fines are income-based in Finland. Halla-aho was sentenced to 50 day-fines and had to pay €550 based on his income.

France

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, states, in its article 11:

The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.

In addition, France adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (afterJustice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults.[85][86] The Gayssot Act of 1990 prohibits any racist, anti-Semite, or xenophobic activities, including Holocaust denial.[86] The Law of 30 December 2004 prohibits hatred against people because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability.[87]

An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the “positive presentation of drugs” and the “incitement to their consumption” with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as Libération, Charlie Hebdoand associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law.

France does not implement any preliminary government censorship for written publications. Any violation of law must be processed through the courts.

The government has a commission recommending movie classifications, the decisions of which can be appealed before the courts. Another commission oversees publications for the youth. The Minister of the Interior can prohibit the sale of pornographic publications to minors, and can also prevent such publications from being publicly displayed or advertised; such decisions can be challenged before administrative courts.[88]

The government restricts the right of broadcasting to authorized radio and television channels; the authorizations are granted by an independent administrative authority; this authority has recently removed the broadcasting authorizations of some foreign channels because of their antisemitic content.

As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months’ imprisonment.[citation needed] Restrictions on “offending the dignity of the republic”, on the other hand, include “insulting” anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors).[citation needed] The legislation reflects the debate that raged after incidents such as the booing of the “La Marseillaise” at a France vs. Algeria football match in 2002.

Germany

Freedom of expression is granted by Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which also states that there is no censorship and freedom of expression may be limited by law.

The press is regulated by the law of Germany as well as all 16 States of Germany.[89] The most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting speech and the press can be found in the Criminal code:

  • Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law).
  • Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven. Yet journalists are free to investigate without evidence because they are justified by Safeguarding Legitimate Interests (Section 193).
  • Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and antisemitism.
  • Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130 subsection 3.
  • Membership in or support of banned political parties (Section 86). Currently banned parties include the SRP and the KPD, but historically all non-Nazi parties have been banned (1933–1945).
  • Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86).
  • Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86a). Items such as the Swastika or clothing of the FDJ is banned.
  • Disparagement of
    • the Federal President (Section 90).
    • the State and its Symbols (Section 90a).
  • Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103).
  • Rewarding and Approving Crimes (Section 140).
  • Casting False Suspicion (Section 164).
  • Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public peace (Section 166).
  • Dissemination of Pornographic Writings (Section 184).

Outdoor assemblies must be registered beforehand.[90] Assemblies at memorial sites are banned.[91] Individuals and groups may be banned from assembling, especially those whose fundamental rights have been revoked and banned political parties.[91] The Love Parade decision (1 BvQ 28/01 and 1 BvQ 30/01 of 12 July 2001) determined that for an assembly to be protected it must comply with the concept of a constituent assembly, or the so-called narrow concept of assembly whereby the participants in the assembly must pursue a common purpose that is in the common interest.[92]

Greece

The 14th article of the Constitution of Greece makes it an offence for the press to insult the President of Greece as well as Christianity and any other religion recognized by the state.[93]

Hungary

Articles VII, VIII, IX, and X of the Fundamental Law of Hungary establishes the rights of freedom of expression, speech, press, thought, conscience, religion, artistic creation, scientific research, and assembly.[94] Some of these rights are limited by the penal code:[95]

Section 269 – Incitement against a community
A person who incites to hatred before the general public against

a) the Hungarian nation,
b) any national, ethnic, racial group or certain groups of the population,
shall be punishable for a felony offense with imprisonment up to three years.

This list has been updated to include: “people with disabilities, various sexual identity and sexual orientation”, effective from July 2013.[citation needed]

It is also illegal under Section 269/C of the penal code and punishable with three years of imprisonment, to publicly “deny, question, mark as insignificant, attempt to justify the genocides carried out by the National Socialist and Communist regimes, as well as the facts of other crimes against humanity.”[95]

Ireland

Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution. However the article qualifies this right, providing that it may not be used to undermine “public order or morality or the authority of the State”. Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of “blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter” be a criminal offence, leading the government to pass a new blasphemy law on 8 July 2009.

The scope of the protection afforded by this Article has been interpreted restrictively by the judiciary, largely as a result of the wording of the Article, which qualifies the right before articulating it. Indeed, until an authoritative pronouncement on the issue by the Supreme Court, many believed that the protection was restricted to “convictions and opinions” and, as a result, a separate right to communicate was, by necessity, implied into Article 40.3.2. This judicial conservatism is at variance with the concept of speech as a democratic imperative. This, albeit trite, justification for free speech has underpinned the liberal, progressive interpretation of the First Amendment by the United States Supreme Court.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, all of the rights afforded by the European Convention serve as a guideline for the judiciary to act upon. The act is subordinate to the constitution.

Italy

In Italy the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, as stated in Article 21, Paragraph 1:[96]

Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication.

The Article also gives restrictions against those acts considered offensive by public morality, as stated in Paragraph 6:

Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be prohibited. Measures of preventive and repressive measure against such violations shall be established by law.

Such restrictions are enforced through the Italian Penal Code which, for example, includes articles that prohibit:

Commercial advertising of artwork owned by the government, such as Michelangelo’s David (created in the 16th Century), require an assessment of the adequacy of the image, which must respect cultural dignity.[97]

Malta

Blasphemy against the Roman Catholic church is illegal in Malta.[98]

The Netherlands

De Schreeuw (The Scream) is a memorial commemorating Theo van Gogh and a symbol of the freedom of speech.

Article 7 of the Dutch Grondwet in its first paragraph grants everybody the right to make public ideas and feelings by printing them without prior censorship, but not exonerating the author from his liabilities under the law. The second paragraph says that radio and television will be regulated by law but that there will be no prior censorship dealing with the content of broadcasts. The third paragraph grants a similar freedom of speech as in the first for other means of making ideas and feelings public but allowing censorship for reasons of decency when the public that has access may be younger than sixteen years of age. The fourth and last paragraph exempts commercial advertising from the freedoms granted in the first three paragraphs.[99]

The penal code has laws however sanctioning certain types of expression. Such laws and freedom of speech are at the centre of a public debate in The Netherlands after the arrest on 16 May 2008 of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. Jurisprudence from the 1960s prohibits prosecution of blasphemy. Parliament has recently expressed its wish to abolish the law penalizing blasphemy. The current Christian Democrat Justice Minister would however prefer to renew it and expand it to include non-religious philosophies of life, thus making it possible to anticipate and prevent international outcry similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Laws that punish discriminatory speech also exist and are being used against Gregorius Nekschot. Laws on lèse majesté exist and are occasionally used to prosecute.

The Dutch Criminal Code § 137(c) criminalizes:[73]

… deliberately giv[ing] public expression to views insulting to a group of persons on account of their race, religion, or conviction or sexual preference.

Poland

“Statutes of Wiślica” introduced in 1347 by Casimir III of Poland codified freedom of speech in medieval Poland e.g. book publishers were not to be persecuted. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland, specifically forbids, the existence of “political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism, and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership“. As of 2005,[citation needed] people are sometimes convicted and/or detained for about one day for insults to religious feeling (of the Roman Catholic Church)[citation needed] or to heads of state who are not yet, but soon will be, on Polish territory. On 18 July 2003, During 26–27 January 2005, about 30 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the police, allegedly for insulting Vladimir Putin, a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.[100]

Spain

Article 578 of the Penal Code of Spain prohibits the “Glorification or justification, by any means of public expression or dissemination, of the crimes included in Articles 571-577 of this Code or of those who participated in its execution, or performance of acts involving disrepute, contempt or humiliation of the victims of terrorist offenses or their families[…]”.[101] In January 2014, a judge of the Audiencia Nacional banned a planned march in Bilbao in support of jailed members of the Basque separatist group ETA that was organized by the group Tantaz Tanta (“Drop for drop” in Basque) on the basis that he considered the group to be the successor to Herrira, whose activities had been banned because of its suspected links to jailed ETA militants.[102][103][104] In February 2014, a Twitter user was convicted for expressing praise for the separatist group GRAPO.[105][106]

Sweden

Freedom of speech is regulated in three parts of the Constitution of Sweden:

  • Regeringsformen, Chapter 2 (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) protects personal freedom of expression “whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way”.[107]
  • Tryckfrihetsförordningen (Freedom of the Press Act) protects the freedom of printed press, as well as the principle of free access to public records (Principle of Public Access) and the right to communicate information to the press anonymously. For a newspaper to be covered by this law, it must be registered and have a “legally responsible publisher”, a Swedish legal term meaning a person who is ultimately accountable for the printed material.[108][109]
  • Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen (Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression) extends protections similar to those of Tryckfrihetsförordningen to other media, including television, radio and web sites.[110]

Hate speech laws prohibit threats or expressions of contempt based on race, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origin, religious belief or sexual orientation.[111]

In the weeks preceding the election of 2010, the privately owned TV channel TV4 refused to show an advertisement of the Sweden Democrats party, fearing that it could be prosecuted for publishing hate speech.[112] The ad displayed women in traditional Islamistic burkhas reaching for an emergency brake labelled with the text “Pensions”, and an elderly woman reaching for an emergency brake labelled with the text “Immigration”, thus implying that there is a fiscal conflict between pension payments and allowing humanitarian immigration. The law regulating TV and radio broadcasts had previously expressly prohibited discrimination against advertisers, granting a rejected advertiser the right to complain to a national board. However, the ban was lifted just two months before the election, thus making it possible for TV and radio broadcasters to opt-out on some parties while showing the commercials of other parties.[113] This was the first election when the Sweden Democrats gained seats in the Swedish Parliament. Some Danish ministers criticized the TV4 decision as democratically unacceptable.[113]

Prior to the election of 2014, the General Secretary for the Swedish Red Cross and former discrimination ombudsman Peter Nobel demanded that the Nazistic Swedes Party be banned.[114][115][116][117] A former police intendent, Erik Rönnegård, stated in the juridical newspaper, Dagens Juridik, that not banning the party showed incompetence of both the police and the judiciary.[117] A large newspaper, Aftonbladet, interviewed “many lawyers” who said that the party must be banned and not banning the party is not in accordance with the United Nations convention on racism.[114] According to the largest Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter the governmental decision to not to ban the party has been criticized “by many”.[117] Both the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice said that freedom of speech must be respected and no parties should be banned.[114] Holding a demonstration requires a permission by the Swedish police. The police have so far granted demonstration permissions to the Swedes Party, but Swedish Left Party leader Jonas Sjöstedt has criticized the police for issuing permissions “so generously”.[118]

United Kingdom

The Bill of Rights 1689 grants theparliamentary privilege for freedom of speech and debates or proceedings inParliament and is still in effect.

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[119] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[120][121][122] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress oranxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[123][124][125] incitement,[126] incitement to racial hatred,[127] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[126][128][129] glorifying terrorism,[130][131][132] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[133][134] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[135][136][137][138][139] sedition,[136] obscenity,[140] indecency including corruption ofpublic morals and outraging public decency,[141] defamation,[142] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[143][144] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[144] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[144][145] time, manner, and place restrictions,[146] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986).[147] UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. Lord Hoffman‘s words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to “the jargon of the old Soviet Union.”

The Video Recordings Act 2010 requires most video recordings and some video games offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the BBFC. There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused. The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification, but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country. Cinemas by convention use BBFC classifications, but recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in cinemas providing the local authority, from which a cinema must have a licence to operate, will permit them.

Norway

Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution has granted freedom of speech since 1814 and is mostly unchanged since then. Article 142 of the penal code is a law against blasphemy, but no one has been charged since 1933, though it was upheld as late as 2004. Article 135a of the penal code is a law against hate speech, which is debated and not widely used.

Article 100 in the Constitution states:

  • There shall be freedom of expression.
  • No person may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual’s freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law.
  • Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limitations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty considerations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression.
  • Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions.
  • Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipal administration and a right to follow the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies. Limitations to this right may be prescribed by law to protect the privacy of the individual or for other weighty reasons.
  • It is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse.

Russia

Various aspects of the contemporary press freedom situation are criticized by multiple international organizations.[148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155] Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and press, however, government application of law, bureaucratic regulation, and politically motivated criminal investigations have forced the press to exerciseself-censorship constraining its coverage of certain controversial issues, resulting in infringements of these rights.[148][149][156] According to Human Rights Watch, the Russian government exerts control over civil society through selective implementation of the law, restriction and censure.[152]

The 2002 Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity codifies a definition of “extremism”, prohibits advocacy of extreme political positions, imposes liability on organizations that do not disavow the “extremist” statements of their members, and allows government authorities to suspend, without court order, social and religious organizations and political parties.[157] In 2014, Russia strengthened criminal responsibility for crimes under Art. 280 (“public calls for extremist activity”), Art. 282 (“inciting hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity”), Art. 282 Part 1 (“the organization of an extremist community”) and Art. 282 Part 2 (“the organization of an extremist organization”) of the Criminal Code.[158] Under the strengthened laws, those convicted of “extremist activity” face up to six years in prison.[159]

Switzerland

The Swiss Constitution also guarantees Freedom of speech and Freedom of information for every citizen (Article 16).[160] But still the country makes some controversial decisions, which both Human Right Organizations and other states criticizes. The Swiss animal rights organization “Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz” took the country to the European Court of Human Rights twice for censoring a TV ad of the organization, in which the livestock farming of pigs is shown. The organization won both lawsuits, and the Swiss state was convicted to pay compensations.[161] Another very controversial law of Switzerland is that persons who refuse to recognize the Armenian Genocide of 1915 have to face trial. The Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek was fined CHF 12,000 for denying the genocide in 2007. Switzerland was criticized by Turkish media and Turkish politicians for acting against the freedom of opinion. Perinçek’s application for a revision was rejected by the court.[162] Holocaust denial is also illegal.

Turkey

Article 26 of the Constitution of Turkey guarantees the right to “Freedom of Expression and Dissemination of Thought”. Moreover, the Republic of Turkey is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and submits to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The constitutional freedom of expression may be limited by provisions in other laws, such as Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which outlaws denigration of the Turkish Nation, while also providing that “expression of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime”.

5.North America

Canada

Freedom of expression in Canada is guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication

Section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitations clause, establishes that the guarantee of freedom of expression and other rights under the Charter are not absolute and can be limited under certain situations:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)

This section is double-edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted, if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated, if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

Other laws that protect freedom of speech in Canada, and did so, to a limited extent, before the Charter was enacted in 1982, include the Implied Bill of Rights and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

In the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Zundel (1992), the court struck down a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibited publication of false information or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter.

Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. The prohibition against inciting hatred based on sexual orientation was added to the section in 2004 with the passage of Bill C-250. A prohibition against inciting hatred based on “gender identity” is slated to be included in section 318 with the passage of Bill C-279, once it has been given Royal Assent.[163]

Canada has had a string of high-profile court cases in which writers and publishers have been prosecuted for their writings, in both magazines and web postings:

  • In February 2006, Calgary Muslim leader Syed Soharwardy filed a human rights complaint against Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant. Levant was compelled to appear before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to discuss his intention in publishing the Muhammad cartoons. Levant posted a video of the hearing on YouTube. Levant questioned the competence of the Commission to take up the issue, and challenged it to convict him, “and sentence me to the apology”, stating that he would then take “this junk into the real courts, where eight hundred years of common law” would come to his aid. In February 2008, Soharwardy dropped the complaint noting that “most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society.”[164]
  • In May 2006, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities filed another Human Rights complaint against the Western Standard over the publishing of the cartoons. In August 2008, the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship (AHRC) Commission dismissed the complaint, stating that, “given the full context of the republication of the cartoons, the very strong language defining hatred and contempt in the case law as well as consideration of the importance of freedom of speech and the ‘admonition to balance,’ the southern director concludes that there is no reasonable basis in the information for this complaint to proceed to a panel hearing.”[165]
  • In 2007, a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to an article “The Future Belongs to Islam,” written by Mark Steyn, published in Maclean’smagazine. The complainants alleged that the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The complainants also claimed that the article was one of twenty-two Maclean’s articles, many written by Steyn, about Muslims. Further complaints were filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and theBritish Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint in June 2008.[166]
  • A Montreal neo-Nazi, Jean-Sebastien Presseault, received a six-month prison sentence for willfully promoting hatred toward blacks and Jews on his website. Calling Presseault’s opinions “vile” and “nauseating,” Quebec Court Judge Martin Vauclair sent the heavily tattooed man back to jail. The 24 tattoos, including several Ku Klux Klanand Nazi symbols covering the defendant’s torso, figure prominently in Vauclair’s decision to give jail time, as opposed to a sentence to be served in the community, as the defence had hoped. “The violence he inflicted on his own body to leave almost-indelible marks of his convictions testify as to his unresolved frustrations but also to his deep-seated racist and hateful beliefs,” Vauclair said.[167]
  • In February 2010, Bill Whatcott had the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ruling against him alleging discrimination against four homosexuals and fining him $17,500 overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Part of the judgment acquitting Whatcott read, “the manner in which children in the public school system are to be exposed to messages about different forms of sexuality and sexual identity is inherently controversial. It must always be open to public debate. That debate will sometimes be polemical and impolite.”[168] The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which decided to hear the case.[169] In February 2013, the Court decided that, although Bible passages, biblical beliefs and the principles derived from those beliefs can be legally and reasonably advanced in public discourse, extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification” cannot be.[170]

Cuba

Main article: Censorship in Cuba

Books, newspapers, radio channels, television channels, movies and music are censored. Cuba is one of the world’s worst offenders of free speech according to the Press Freedom Index 2008.[171] RWB states that Cuba is “the second biggest prison in the world for journalists” after the People’s Republic of China.[172]

United States

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,[173][174] defamation,[173][174] incitement,[174] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[173][174] fighting words,[173] fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct; this is not to say that it is illegal, but just that the government may make it illegal. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as terrorist threats, making false statements in “matters within the jurisdiction” of the federal government,[175] spreading false and misleading information (which has been used to punish hoaxes on 4chan),[176][177][178][179] speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information,[180] false advertising,[174] perjury,[174] privileged communications, trade secrets,[181][182] copyright, and patents. There also exist so-called “gag orders” which prevent the recipient of certain court orders (such as those concerning national security letters, stored communications subpoenas, pen registers and trap and trace devices) from revealing them. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions. In addition, in California it is a crime to post a public official’s address or telephone number on the Internet.[183][184]

The Newseum‘s five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Historically, local communities and governments have sometimes sought to place limits upon speech that was deemed subversive or unpopular. There was a significant struggle for the right to free speech on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. And, in the period from 1906 to 1916, the Industrial Workers of the World, a working class union, found it necessary to engage infree speech fights intended to secure the right of union organizers to speak freely to wage workers. These free speech campaigns were sometimes quite successful, although participants often put themselves at great risk.[citation needed]

Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[185] Civil liberties advocates claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[185]

Neither the federal nor state governments engage in preliminary censorship of movies. However, the Motion Picture Association of America has a rating system, and movies not rated by the MPAA cannot expect anything but a very limited release in theatres. Since the organization is private, no recourse to the courts is available. The rules implemented by the MPAA are more restrictive than the ones implemented by most First World countries.[citation needed] However, unlike comparable public or private institutions in other countries, the MPAA does not have the power to limit the retail sale of movies in tape or disc form based on their content, nor does it affect movie distribution in public (i.e., government-funded) libraries. Since 2000, it has become quite common for movie studios to release “unrated” DVD versions of films with MPAA-censored content put back in.

Unlike what has been called a strong international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law and that such prohibitions override, or are irrelevant to, guarantees of freedom of expression, the United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law, hate speech is legal.[186][187]

For instance, in July 2012 a U.S. court ruled that advertisements with the slogan, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel Defeat Jihad”, are constitutionally protected speech and the government must allow their display in New York City Subway.[188] In response on 27 September 2012 New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for subway advertisements, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace”. The MTA believes the new guidelines adhere to the court’s ruling and will withstand any potential First Amendment challenge. Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow viewpoint ads, but will require a disclaimer on each ad noting that it does not imply the authority’s endorsement of its views.[189]

In response to libel tourism, in 2010 the United States enacted the SPEECH Act making foreign defamation judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts unless those judgments are compliant with the First Amendment.

6.South America

In Brazil, freedom of assembly and expression are Constitutional rights.

Brazil

In Brazil, freedom of expression is a Constitutional right. Article Five of the Constitution of Brazil establishes that the “expression of thought is free, anonymity being forbidden”. Furthermore, the “expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communications activities is free, independently of censorship or license”.

However, there are legal provisions criminalizing the desecration of religious artifacts at the time of worship, hate speech, racism, defamation, calumny, and libel. Brazilian law also forbids “unjust and grave threats”.

Historically, freedom of speech has been a right in Brazilian Law since the 1824 Constitution was enacted, though it was banned by theVargas dictatorship and severely restricted under the military dictatorship in 1964–85.

Ecuador

Accusations or insults without factual basis can be punished by three months to three years in prison according to Article 494 of Ecuador’s penal code.[190] It is usually interpreted in media as criminal defamation and/or libel.

In 2012 the Supreme Court of Ecuador upheld a three-year prison sentence and a $42 million fine for criminal libel against an editor and the directors of the newspaper El Universo for “aggravated defamation of a public official”.[191] In 2013 Assemblyman Cléver Jiménez was sentenced to a year in prison for criminal libel.[192][193]

-sources from Wikipedia.

All the country need to give more liberal Right of ‘the freedom of Speech’ because every citizen have responsibility to enjoy their Freedom of Speech.

The meaning of JIHAD and its used.

The term ‘JIHAD’ has been miss-understood by many people. The literal definition of the word jihad is: striving to achieve a goal, while the Quranic definition of the word is “striving with one’s self and one’s money in the cause of God” and more importantly fighting with the evil intentions within oneself which shall reflect in his/ her actions in order to come closer to God.

Kindly refrain from utilizing terms you do not possess full knowledge of lest it may manipulate and condition the thinking patterns of a lot of people even if that may not be your intention.

jihad is miss-used by many people, that jihad should not be used in the actions of suicide bombing or other social violent but it is to be used for ‘striving with one’s self in the caused of GOD’ in order to come closer to God but not against the law & well of God. Love is the greatest comment of God but Killing other is not the law of God. Love one another..

Thanks

INDIAN GREATEST MISTAKE IN MY TIMES;

I come from the beautiful place called nagalim and I know the greatest mistake India has done in my time, that she colonized Nagalim and enforced Indian constitution forcefully by violating Human Right in every part of Naga inhabited areas and forced the Nagas to become a part of India by using Arm forces since 1951 while Nagas want separate state from India and position is clear for both sides, but Indian  disrespect the Right of the Nagas, their interest, Customary Law and constitution of the Nagas; she kept on forcing to NAGAS and trying more than 60 years which is totally unacceptable as a human being, because every nation have to respect the Historical Right of the other nation and one state can’t rules the other state by force in 21st century. India politicians disrespect the Naga Historical Right and the Political Right which is the Indian greatest mistake I ever seen.

Allow me to give evidence for this claim in respect of ‘freedom of speech’; The Indian state has make a great mistake that have been left behind by British in Naga inhabited areas. When we recall the Naga History, Indian politician lack of honesty and sincerity to nagas people, which lead to bleeding of thousand innocent Nagas because their dirty politics; first plebiscite of India was conducted after her independent in Nagaland in the year of 1951 where 99.9 voted for free Nagas under the leadership of A.Z. Phizo president of Naga Nation Council (NNC) and guardian of GoI, right after that plebiscite India state declared war on Nagas. Indian betray the NNC and plebiscite conducted by two party, by ignoring the result and never talk about that anymore. Naga Nation Council (NNC) which was form on 1918 for the cause of Nagas has boycott the first general election in 1952 and extended to boycott all India offices. Indian sent thousands of Indian armies to colonized Nagalim by violating Humen Right and of the Right of Nagas. 1n 1958, 11th September the Arm Force Special Power Act was passed and enforced in Naga inhabited areas as disturbed areas and conduct many operation and under ‘Blue Birth Operation’ and ‘Force Labours’ many Nagas have been killed, raged, women were rapes, tortured, burn down many houses and did many inhuman action, where the justice was very far for Nagas. GoI and her army men violated countless Human Right in all part of the Naga inhabited areas where they have right to killed the civilian and carry out everything they want under the Law of AFSPA and Sec 144 CrPC, where there was no Justice for Naga people at all under these law. The inhuman action of Indian forces to the Naga people were over the limitation which the NNC expected , NNC calls all the tribe leaders come together to form an organization and started picking up the weapon so-called as Naga Army to protect the Motherland of Nagas, which is supported by civil society of Nagas.

 

The cease-fire agreement sign between NSCN and Government of India signed on July 25 1997 and continue till date in Prime Minister Level but the government of India are not sincere in the politic toward Nagas.

 

July 25, 1997 Cease-fire agreement signed between Government of India and NSCN-IM
August 1, 1997 Cease-fire comes into effect
October 29, 1997 Cease-fire agreement extended for three months
April 28, 1988. Cease fire extended for three months, commencing on May 1
August 31, 1998 Cease-fire extended for one year
April 1, 1999. Cease-fire extended for six months from April 15
August 1, 1999 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 31, 2000 Cease-fire extended for another year
January 13, 2001 NSCN-IM leaders and Government of India representatives met in New Delhi to finalise “The Revised Agreed Ground Rules”
June 14, 2001 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 11, 2002 Cease-fire extended for another year
July 17, 2003 Cease-fire extended by another year
July 30, 2004 The Union Government extends by another year the cease-fire with the NSCN-IM following talks with the outfit’s leadership in Chiang Mai, Thailand
July 30, 2005 Cease-fire extended by six months
January 31, 2006 Cease-fire extended for another six months
July 31, 2006 Cease-fire extended for a period of one year
July 31, 2007 Cease-fire extended indefinitely.
 

 India cant denied the true fact of the Naga history and political Right, so India Government recognized the Unique History and Political Right of the Nagas, on July 11 2002, they also review the 16 point agreement of 1960 and formation of Nagaland in 1962; where the Nagas have their own father of Nation called A.Z. Phizo, even Indian Official respect his tomb in Kohima and the talk in Prime Minister Level symbolized that Nagas are not Indian because in one country there cannot be two Prime Minister.  16 years round of peace talk with GoI without any solution is discouraging. We can recollect, before British came to our land, Nagas have village sovereignty and we are happy with that system but since British control our nation and lather pass their power to India and still we are under the control of other nation. If Naga don’t want to be a part of India than they can’t force us to do so. I am really fed up and I cannot trust to Indian politician anymore because of their insincerities and dirty politics. Government of India need to respect Human Right, I belief Naga sovereignty is a Right of Nagas, so it is a apart of Human Right for Nagas.

 

Indian state have the second largest population in the world next to china, where Nagas and North-East people were highly discriminated in all the major cities of India by numerous numbers of India citizens. Where there the Indian state has failed to protect the Nagas in her state. Her citizen said to the Nagas people that, you are from china? Or Nepal, or from Japan or from korea? They know that Nagas in Indian cities are not Indian, and all the citizens of India were the proved, but few politician want Nagas to be a part of India for some reason like securities purposed and territory integrity. Indian were afraid of foreign invasion from Noth-East sides, where they are week in military power to protect from country like China. India colonized the Nagas forcefully for they were insecure from Chinese power and want to expand her territories, while she failed to give safety to the Naga people.so, my question is why the Indian government forcefully taken the sovereignty of the Nagas like the British did to India in 19th century? And why they cannot protect the Naga when they want us to be her part, why she become the enemies of the Nagas by killing the civilians and given away the Nagas land to Burma? Is the Indian afraid of her neighboring state, thereby maintaining her protection from them, by hurting immensely to Naga nation? Is not the Student and the workers were discriminated everywhere in all part of india? We were living peacefully in our home town before, but today we are not safe in our own place so-called Nagalim because of your mistake effected deeply to all the Nagas. Nagas will always remember your mistake, which Indian thinks as legal. Why we can say that the Indian respect to Nagas, when her Army can violate the Human Right in Nagaland and other part of Naga inhabited areas? Indian colonized the whole Naga inhabited areas some year back and now I want it back again from her hand. We can’t live under the tyranny rules of India, ruling in my land against the law of my land which is totally unacceptable at all. I want all my people to be safe in my land not to be killed without reason or trail but your law did (your law like AFSPA or Sec 144 CrPC act), it had killed many Naga and compensated for some amount of money for precious life, which is not in my customary law. I want my land to be developed like other country does but not to be function my government under your constitution which is presently functioning under the your law where my people suffer enough because of the corruption of your government in Nagalim. Indian constitution is no longer acceptable for the Nagas because it is not our constitution but we have our own constitution; and if the Government of India is going to solved the Naga political solution under Indian constitution then we the Nagas will never ever accept and never will be, because there is no Nagas consent in making the constitution of India, we will find the solution which will bring us permanent solution for all the Nagas in our satisfaction but not in under Indian constitution as Indian politician are thinking. Nagas will respect India as our neighbors always but we will do anything to protect our birth Right, Historical Truth, Political Right and Sovereignty. However the Indian denied all this Right of Nagas in Nagalim, discriminated Nagas citizen in all the part of Indian and Indian don’t want to declare Nagas sovereignty to the world but try their best to forces Nagas to become a part of India which is the Indian greatest mistake.

-KHARINGYO SHIMRAH

Indo-Naga conflict the longest conflict in the world.

Indo-Naga conflict; in between the Kukis the refugees fighting to NSCN to claim their land in Nagas homeland.

Feb 19, 1990
A minister of the northeast Indian state of Nagaland escaped a guerrilla assassination bid unhurt.
Apr 30, 1990
A. Zapu Phizo (aged 83), President of the Naga National Council (NNC), died while living in exile in Bromley, Kent, England.
Aug 1990
Clashes increased between the Chang, Konyak, and Yimchunger, who are Naga tribal groups. 50 people died and over 100 were injured in four days of clashes over objections to various tribal ceremonies. The Indian army has been ordered to shoot curfew-breakers on-sight in response to violent clashes between Naga tribes who are reverting to traditional head-hunting practices.
Nov 6, 1990
Border policemen were killed by Naga “extremists”.
Aug 14, 1991
Ten policemen escorting the speaker of the Nagaland state assembly were killed by NSCN extremists.
Dec 10, 1991
10 security personnel and a driver were killed when Naga rebels ambushed their convoy in a successful attempt to steal 7.3 million rupees (280,000 dollars), a huge sum in India.
Dec 15, 1991
Naga tribal guerrillas killed five paramilitary policemen and wounded four others when they ambushed their convoy traveling from Manipur’s capital Imphal to the town of Leimatak (presumably in Nagaland).
Jan 1992
Over one thousand Burmese Naga tribals have fled to India over the last two weeks following a military crackdown on ethnic minorities in Myanmar. India has formally protested to Rangoon about the influx of refugees on its northeastern border and has told the Burmese government to take them back. The influx is a result of a crackdown by Burmese troops on militants of the NSCN which has bases in Myanmar’s border areas.
Jan 30, 1992
India held two British citizens, David Ward and Steve Hillman of Naga-Vigil on charges of subversion. Naga-Vigil, which is based in Britain is monitoring human rights violations in India.
Mar 28, 1992
The state legislature of Nagaland was dissolved and elections called by the central government. Vamuzo, a member of Naga People’s Council (NPC), was named interim chief minister. He said elections would be held within three months.
Apr 3, 1992
India placed Nagaland under direct rule. Officials stated that it was not possible for local authorities to carry on the administration of the state because of the law and order problem.
May 8, 1992
12 Naga separatists attacked a market in Mokukchung and shot dead four policemen. As of May 1992, India stations about 15 percent of its 1.2 million troops in Nagaland (The Associated Press, 05/12/92).
Jun 12, 1992
Three officers and 10 men of the Indian army’s Gurkha regiment were killed in an ambush by the NSCN.
Jul 1992
The Indian army and the Assam Rifles carried out a joint operation in Pulomi, in the Kohima district, and captured a major center of the NSCN.
Aug 1992
The governor’s administration invoked the National Security Act of 1980 in Nagaland. The measure was taken in response to the considerable mobilization of the NSCN. Indian troops and the Assam Rifles conducted a joint operation in Eaunch Kumao in the Mau division of Manipur bordering Nagaland.
Aug 13, 1992
13 members of the NNC (NFG) were killed by armed gunmen of the NSCN. The killing was in retaliation for the alleged cooperation of the NNC with the Indian army in a crackdown on a NSCN camp.
Aug 20, 1992
Six policemen were killed by NSCN rebels near Sailen village, Manipur.
Nov 8, 1992
NSCN rebels killed at least 35 villagers in Layshi township of Myanmar near the border of India.
Nov 11, 1992
Indian intelligence officials said NSCN tribesmen fighting for independence in northeast India planned to double the “loyalty tax” in NSCN-controlled areas, apparently in order to make major arms purchases. A group of Naga rebels killed 15 villagers in Layshi township of Myanmar.
Jan 18, 1993
NSCN rebels overran a security unit in Manipur and set ablaze a major telecommunications facility, leaving services out in half of Manipur.
Feb 1, 1993
NSCN rebels ambushed paramilitary soldiers in Manipur’s Senapati area, killing six and injuring five. Two rebels were also killed in the attack. In a separate attack, two paramilitary troopers in another part of Manipur were shot and wounded.
Feb 15, 1993
Voters went to the polls in Nagaland and the nearby state of Meghalaya to elect new state legislatures.
Feb 16, 1993
While returning with sealed ballot boxes, five paramilitary troops and six polling officials were slain in a NSCN guerilla ambush near the Tuensang area. Police responded to the ambush by ordering police and soldiers to seal the entire Tuensang area to flush out the guerrillas from their hideouts.
Mar 11, 1993
India released David Ward and Stephen Hillman, British Naga-Vigil members, who had joined a band of tribal rebels fighting in the northeastern jungles of India.
Apr 22, 1993
The Times of India newspaper carried a report stating that Manipur State government authorities have requested help from the Indian Prime Minister and the Indian Army, in fighting insurgent forces (the Kukis and the NSCN). The newspaper also reported that the Kuki Chin terrorist insurgents were receiving (military) aid from the Myanmar government. The Myanmar government denied the accusations.
May 3, 1993
Police shot dead five NSCN rebels. The shooting occurred while the rebels tried to escape after looting a bank in Mancachar town located in northeastern Assam. There was one arrest and four civilians were injured.
May 3 – 4, 1993
The Indian army was placed on alert after two days of savage inter-tribal clashes between the Kukis and the Nagas left at least 86 people dead and 130 wounded in Manipur. The government clamped curfews on sensitive areas (including the capital of Manipur, Imphal).
May 6, 1993
The Indian army deployed troops in Manipur to help deal with the Kuki refugees-Naga ethnic clashes. Police have arrested over 100 people in connection with the violence.
May 21, 1993
Two suspected NSCN activists were killed and five members of the Kuki refugees Defence Force apprehended in two separate incidents in Chandes and Tobo districts. The NSCN rebels were killed by the Assam Rifles during a combing operation launched by the Assam Rifles at Lelong and Raithaw areas in Kobo district.
May 28, 1993
The Indian army launched a crackdown on insurgents in Manipur. The crackdown was mainly directed at five outlawed groups, including the NSCN. The army crackdown followed fresh violence between the Naga and Kuki tribes in Manipur’s Ukhrul district. Three NSCN gunmen and five Kuki refugees militant were also killed in clashes near the Burmese border, officials said, without specifying when.
Jun 7, 1993
Forty-four houses of the Kuki tribe were set ablaze in Nagaland, allegedly by suspected NSCN rebels in respond to their action against innocent Nagas by kuki refugees militiaman.
Jun 29, 1993
NSCN guerrillas attacked an army convoy just outside of the village of Sita, Manipur, killing 26 soldiers. It was the most serious attack by the rebels in their protracted war against the Indian government. About 20 other soldiers were injured, two civilians and two rebels were also killed.
Aug 10, 1993
Prohibitory orders were promulgated in all the 17 tribal areas of Imphal and greater Imphal for two months from August 10. This order was in response to a Kuki revenge attack in which 12 houses were set on file in a Naga village.
Aug 13, 1993
Indian security forces launched a massive search in Manipur for the NSCN insurgents who ambushed an army column, killing six soldiers and two civilians. Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was considering imposing direct federal rule in Manipur.
Sep 2, 1993
Naga leader, Ankim Khumto Anal, a mainstream politician who contested the last state assembly elections, was shot by NSCN rebels. NSCN rebels are also suspected of another recent killing of a Kuki senior leader.
Sep 10, 1993
Indian troops stormed a base of the outlawed Isaac-Muivah faction of the NSCN at Niuland near Kimapur, killing or wounding at least six rebels.
Sep 16, 1993
September 14, the Indian government ordered more than 200 paramilitary reinforcements rushed to the remote states of Manipur and Nagaland. 5,000 additional troops were also being airlifted to the area. Kukis launched a retaliatory raid on a Naga village of 300 people on the outskirts of Imphal, burning down 25 houses. NSCN activists allegedly gunned down 16 Kuki villagers at Gelneng in the Senapati district. Kuki National Army rebels set ablaze all 45 houses of Sadu Khurai, a Naga village in the Senapati district.
Sep 17 – 29, 1993
The Naga-Kuki clashes are escalating throughout Manipur. Prime Minister Rao is preparing a presidential proclamation to impose direct federal rule in Manipur, according to United Press International.
Oct 5, 1993
The Kuki villages were paying taxes to the nagas as a land taxes but at last they refused pay the taxes so, the villages were set on fire and at least 77 houses destroyed when Kukis in the Naga dominated area refused to pay taxes to the Naga separatists and refused to be evicted leadto further conflict between the two party.
Oct 6, 1993
The leaders of the warring tribes of the Kukis and Nagas appealed for a three-month cease-fire, but the chances the call would be heeded were slim, Manipur Chief Minister Rajdumar Dorendra Singh told Reuters. The joint appeal followed a meeting between Kuki and Naga leaders.
Oct 11, 1993
NSCN guerrillas ambushed a police convoy on the Tamenglong road, killing two policemen. In a separate attack, 30 NSCN guerrillas fought a 40-minute battle with policemen after attacking their base camp in Litan, killing four policemen, reported Reuters.
Oct 21, 1993
Over 500 armed Nagas attacked the village of Yangloi Kuki where the Assam Rifles were encamped. They set 100 homes on fire but there were no reported casualties. Four soldiers were injured in an exchange of fire with armed Nagas at Makui Chajang in Tamenglong district. One person was killed and about 819 villagers lost their homes.
Dec 4, 1993
Kuki militants killed at least hundred Nagas civilian, injured many others, and burned 250 houses in a Naga village in Churangchanbpur district, at last kukis Arm forces driven out all Nagas in Charachanbur areas and establish their power in this areas.
Dec 8, 1993
NSCN guerrillas ambushed a Border Security Force convoy outside Zungeboto, Nagaland, killing 5 soldiers and wounding 7 others.
Dec 15, 1993
At least 15 soldiers and one attacker were killed when NSCN separatists allegedly attacked an army convoy near the Nagaland town of Mokokchung.
Dec 31, 1993
Prime Minister Rao invoked special Constitutional powers to disband the local legislature and impose direct federal rule in the state of Manipur. The move was in response to escalating intertribal warfare and growing attacks on government forces.
Jan 7, 1994
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was coordinating various underground outfits in northeast India to boost insurgency in the region, according to General N.S. Malik. The General told a group of visiting reporters recently that the Muivah faction of the NSCN along with the Bodo Security Force (BSF), the ULFA of Assam and the PLA of Manipur had recently formed the United Liberation Front of Seven Sisters (ULFSS). Malik said the group was considerably strong and fast expanding its activities to marginalize its rival, the Indo-Burma Revolutionary Front (IBRF), led by the Khaplang faction of the NSCN. The faction under Isaac-Muivah is more predominant in both Manipur and Nagaland than the Khaplang faction and secured the patronage of Bangladesh and the ISI. Earlier, Brigadier Awasti, briefing newsmen in Dimapur, said that ULFA was leaning toward the NSCN-Muivah faction though it still had links with the IBRF, being one of its founder members.
Jan 14, 1994
In response to intensified insurgent activities in Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura, the Indian government was to set up a separate armed force to deal with insurgency in the northeast states, reported Xinhua General Overseas News Service.
Jan 14, 1994
This was the first major incident since the imposition of President’s rule on the last day of 1993.
Jan 19, 1994
Forces of the Assam Rifles killed five NSCN guerrillas and captured 17 in a raid on their camp in the Peren sub-division of Kohima district.
Feb 12, 1994
The Times of India reported that the Naga-Kuki refugees strife in Manipur may be drawing to a close with both communities trying to make amends.
Apr 14, 1994
Kohima has been put under a night curfew following incidents of violence involving Naga extremists. Additional companies of the Border Security Force and Assam Rifles were deployed in the town to help restore normalcy.
Apr 30, 1994
India’s state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) halted exploration in Nagaland after a separatist Naga group bombed its offices and warned it to stop all work.
May 10, 1994
Naga rebels ambushed an army convoy in the state of Manipur, killing four people. A fierce gun battle between the insurgents and security forces lasting more than an hour followed the ambush.
May 16, 1994
The Nagas and the Kukis as a refugees have signed an agreement to maintain peace and traditional brotherhood in Nagaland. The agreement was signed in Kohima by the leaders of the two organizations of the tribes, Mr. Jelen Dron Huzom and Mr. Kuki Impay. The two-year-old Kuki-Naga clashes in Manipur have raised the specter of more violence with the worst-ever “ethnic cleansing” in India’s northeast. At least 68 people have been killed in Nagaland in the past 17 months.
May 19 – 23, 1994
NSCN guerrillas stormed Kuki villages in Assam for refusing to pay taxes setting them ablaze and killing at least two villagers.
May 24, 1994
Some 100 activists of a banned NSCN faction have returned after receiving arms training in Bangladesh.
May 31, 1994
Naga students called for a day-long strike in protest of the Indian state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) warning that oil exploration would not be allowed unless all their demands were met.
Jun 1, 1994
The Naga Student’s Federation (NSF) was protesting the Oil and Natural Gas Commission’s drilling of oil without the consent of the local inhabitants of Nagaland. The strike brought to a halt traffic on the Dimapur-Imphal national highway. In Kohima, all shops, business establishments and educational institutions remained closed. Central and state government offices were open with thin attendance.
Jun 9, 1994
Government figures indicate that 87 soldiers and 410 militants died in Manipur during 1993. Another 316 people were killed in clashes between the Naga and Kuki tribes (Far Eastern Economic Review, 06/09/94).
Jun 9, 1994
The Governor of Nagaland has accused the state’s chief minister, S.C. Jamir, of maintaining links with a faction of the NSCN. Jamir has denied the charges. Analysts indicate that there is a lack of a clear line between local politics and the insurgency. Many of today’s mainstream politicians were rebels and they still maintain their ties to their former comrades. A history professor at Manipur University, Gangmumei Kabui states that, “The emerging Naga bourgeoisie have a stake in the insurgency. They say to New Delhi: give us more money to solve it. This is happening in Manipur also” (Far Eastern Economic Review, 06/09/94).
Jul 21, 1994
Indian customs officials believe that the two tribes are fighting over a lucrative heroin route from the neighboring Golden Triangle (Reuters, 07/21/94).
Jul 28, 1994
In what is being referred to as the biggest strike against the NSCN in recent times, Indian police raided a camp run by the organization near the capital of Manipur. Two NSCN rebels belonging to the Muivah faction and Six policeman were killed, while four others were injured during the seven-hour gunbattle (Reuters, 07/28/94).
Aug 18, 1994
Twenty-three government troops were killed and thirteen others injured when militants, believed to be from the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), attacked a military patrol in Manipur. Security in the state has been increased following recent Naga-Kuki clashes (UPI, 08/18/94; Reuters, 08/19/94).
Sep 5, 1994
An underground militant group ambushed a routine military patrol in Manipur. At least eight government soldiers were killed (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 09/05/94).
Oct 21, 1994
Members of the outlawed Kuki National Front hijacked a bus in Noney, Manipur, riddled it with gunfire, and then pushed it down a gorge. Forty-five people were killed including thirty-two Nagas. Naga tribals retaliated by killing two Kuki bus drivers in Manipur (Agence France Presse, 10/21/94).
Nov 20, 1994
The Indian government has extended its ban on three outlawed groups in the northeastern part of the country. The groups are the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), the Bodo Security Force (BSF), and the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). Officials contend that the NSCN relies heavily on smuggling and the extortion of funds from citizens (Reuters, 11/20/94).
Nov 24, 1994
The Indian government is deploying additional army troops and paramilitary forces in Manipur following the recent spate of violence (UPI, 11/24/94).
Dec 14, 1994
One year of President’s rule has ended in Manipur as Rishang Keishing of the Congress (I) party was sworn in as chief minister. The state was placed under central control after ethnic violence claimed more than 2000 lives in 1992-93 (Xinhua News Agency, 12/14/94).
Dec 20, 1994
An ambush by Kuki militants in Manipur has resulted in the deaths of 11 federal police officers and 5 civilians. Five policeman were also injured (UPI, 12/20/94).
Jan 17, 1995
The Joint Action Committee on Transport and Carriers Services launched a 42-hour strike that has virtually brought the Manipur state to a standstill. The transport workers were seeking adequate security from the state and central governments as they argued that a goods and road tax imposed by the Naga underground organization was too much (Xinhua News Agency, 12/17/95).
Jan 24, 1995
At least seven paramilitary personnel were killed and seven others wounded when they were ambushed by members of the NSCN in Bishenour district, Manipur (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 01/24/95).
Feb 16, 1995
Sporadic acts of violence occurred as residents in Manipur went to the polls for state assembly elections. Two candidates were killed and a regional election office was bombed. No information was available on who was responsible for the incidents (UPI, 02/16/95).
Feb 23, 1995
A five-party coalition government, led by the Manipur People’s Party, is set to form the new state government (UPI, 02/23/95).
Feb 25, 1995
Two powerful bomb blasts on a passenger train in Assam have led to the deaths of at least 22 soldiers. Some 30 others were wounded. Police suspect that the NSCN was responsible for the incident (Reuters, 02/25/95).
Mar 18, 1995
A Naga village in Manipur was set ablaze by Kuki refugees insurgents. No casualties were reported but over 60 houses were destroyed. The day before, the president of the Kuki National Organization was killed by Naga militants (Reuters, 03/18/95).
Apr 12, 1995
Seven people were killed in various districts in Manipur in clashes between the rival Naga and Kuki tribes (BBC, 04/12/95).
May 4, 1995
NSCN guerrillas ambushed a paramilitary patrol in Assam, killing five troops and seriously wounding four others (Reuters, 05/04/95).
Jun 6, 1995
A number of ambushes by the outlawed NSCN across Manipur led to the deaths of six military personnel and two civilians. Four other soldiers and two civilians were injured (BBC, 06/06/95).
Aug 4, 1995
Two leaders of the Isaac-Muivah faction of the NSCN were among eight rebels killed by the Indian army following a gunbattle near Kohima, the capital city of Nagaland (Reuters, 08/04/95).
Aug 5, 1995
Kuki tribespeople attacked a Naga village in Senapati district, Manipur, setting at least 23 houses on fire (BBC, 08/05/95).
Nov 3, 1995
India’s Union Minister of State for Home, M. Kamsen, has appealed to insurgents in the northeastern part of the country to enter negotiations. During a visit to Manipur, Kamsen stated that a lasting peace agreement could only be found within the framework of the Constitution (BBC, 11/03/95)
Nov 6, 1995
A conference in Thailand organized by the Asia Indigenous People’s Pact (AIPP) and other concerned non-governmental groups was attended by more than 50 delegates from all over Asia. A Naga human rights activist, Luingan Lithui, indicated that Asian governments have refused to accept the concept of indigenous peoples. Lithui argued that these governments were unwilling to give up political control over weaker ethnic groups and the natural resources located in their traditional areas of residence. Conference participants demanded that Asian governments accept the 1994 UN draft declaration of indigenous peoples. The document outlines the rights of indigenous peoples, including their right to self-determination (Inter Press Service, 11/06/95).
Dec 4, 1995
Naga guerrillas attacked a paramilitary patrol in Nagaland. At least nine soldiers were killed and six others injured (Reuters, 12/04/95).
Dec 12 1995
The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) has agreed to refrain from violence during December in honor of Christmas. The group also called on other insurgency groups to halt their attacks during the holiday season. The NSCN is reported to be responsible for an ongoing number of bank robberies and kidnappings for ransom in order to fund their independence movement (UPI, 12/12/95).
Dec 18, 1995
Burmese opposition radio reports that the country’s State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC, the military junta) has increased its troop deployment along the India-Burma border. The move follows the moving of border posts 10 km inside Burma by Burmese Nagas. This would put the Naga who live on the Burmese side in Indian territory. Burmese Nagas are reported to rely on India for all their needs and want to live in India as the Nagas in that country are better off (BBC, 12/18/95).
Dec 19, 1995
Two civilians and a solider die when a school bus is attacked in Manipur. Officials suspect the NSCN or the Marxist Peoples’ Liberation Army which is active in the state (Reuters, 12/19/95).
Feb 8, 1996
Officials report that at least seven people were killed after Naga militants ambushed a police convoy in Assam (BBC, 02/08/96).
Feb 20, 1996
The military believes that the NSCN is responsible for the ambush of an army convoy in Vokha town in Nagaland. Six soldiers were killed. The personnel were in the region to help implement a $3 million rural development project (United Press International, 02/20/96).
Feb 23, 1996
Prime Minister Narasimha Rao offers to hold unconditional talks with Naga insurgent groups (BBC, 02/23/96).
Apr 1 – May 31, 1996
The minority Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government collapses.
May 6, 1996
The Naga Students Federation calls for a boycott of the upcoming federal elections (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 05/06/96).
May 23, 1996
Six military personnel are reported killed in an ambush in Nagaland (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 05/23/96).
Jun 1996
The United Front forms a new federal government. Deve Gowda becomes Prime Minister.
Sep 19, 1996
Authorities indicate that Naga militants are responsible for the deaths of two people in a car bomb attack in Imphal, the capital of Manipur. Some Naga insurgent groups are seeking a greater Nagaland that would include parts of Manipur and other neighboring states (Agence France Presse, 09/19/96).
Sep 26, 1996
Members of the Naga Peoples Forum for District Integrity Association blockade the road linking Manipur with the rest of India due to a land dispute with state authorities. The Naga organization is opposed to a government plan that would create a new revenue district in the northern Sadar Hills. The proposed district for Kuki population (Agence France Presse, 09/26/96: Hindu, 07/15/97).
Nov 5, 1996
The NSCN (I-M) welcomes Prime Minister Gowda’s offer to open peace talks. The organization, which has bases in Burma, warns that a lack of progress could lead it to return to violence (Agence France Presse, 11/05/96).
Dec 10, 1996
Officials report that NSCN members are likely responsible for the deaths of 30 Kukis who were forcibly removed from a bus in Dimapur town in Nagaland. Clashes between the two tribal groups have claimed hundreds of lives since the early 1990s (Reuters, 12/10/96).
Dec 14, 1996
Seven Nagas and one security person are reported killed in gunbattles in Nagaland (Reuters, 12/14/96).
Dec 31, 1996
Naga rebels allegedly shoot a state minister and two family members (Reuters, 12/31/96).
Jan 8, 1997
A former federal minister, who is acting as a representative of New Delhi, recently met with NSCN (I-M) officials in Thailand. The Indian newspaper, Telegraph reports that the NSCN (I-M) has set three preconditions for talks. These are: the negotiations should focus on sovereignty, talks would be held in a third country, and a third party mediator will be included (Agence France Presse, 01/08/97).
Mar 4, 1997
India again offers to hold peace talks with both factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland. Prime Minister Gowda says that he has held initial talks with the major NSCN (I-M) faction in Geneva. Authorities assert that while the organization’s leaders are eager to hold negotiations, its supporters are opposing the move. Efforts to promote peace are also being supported by the Naga Tribal Council (the Hoho) and NGOs like the Naga Mothers Association (Agence France Presse, 03/04/97; Business Standard, 03/05/97).
Apr 1997
Inder Kumar Gujral of the United Front becomes Prime Minister following a dispute within the coalition government.
may 19, 1997
Prime Minister Gujral offers to hold unconditional talks with insurgent groups in the northeast. Last year, the government announced a $1.74 billion economic development package for the region (Agence France Presse, 05/19/97; Japan Economic Newswire, 05/21/97).
Jun 28, 1997
The NSCN (I-M) is expected to hold its second meeting with the government in July in Geneva, Switzerland. In May, the rebel organization publicly stated that it is ready to find a political solution to the decades-long conflict (Agence France Presse, 06/28/97).
Jun 30, 1997
An Indian news agency claims that Naga insurgents are likely responsible for the ambush of a paramilitary patrol in Nagaland that resulted in six deaths (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 06/30/97).
Jul 25, 1997
India announces a three-month ceasefire with the NSCN (I-M) in order to pursue peace talks. Meanwhile, the Chief Minister of Nagaland, S. C. Jamir, will hold unprecedented meetings with tribal leaders in Atlanta, USA, beginning on July 28. The meetings are being sponsored by the Baptist Group of America. The NSCN (I-M), the major faction of the splintered organization, says that it will not attend the Atlanta meetings. The NSCN (K) and the Naga National Council (NNC) are expected to attend (Agence France Presse, 07/25/97; Hindu, 07/27/97).
Jul 28, 1997
Prime Minister Gujral says that other unnamed Naga insurgent groups have also agreed to suspend their activities to allow talks to proceed (BBC, 07/28/97).
Aug 1, 1997
A ceasefire between the government and the NSCN (I-M) goes into effect. In the past few days, sporadic clashes between the two sides were reported (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 08/01/97).
Aug 5, 1997
Some 500,000 people demonstrate in Manipur’s capital, Imphal, to demand that the federal government ensure that its upcoming talks with the NSCN (I-M) will not lead to the territorial dismemberment of the state. Some Nagas favor the creation of a greater Nagaland which would encompass parts of Manipur, Assam, and Arunchal Pradesh (Hindu, 08/05/97).
Aug 12, 1997
One of the leaders of the NSCN (I-M), Isaac Chisi Swu, claims that the government has accepted in principle the need to unify Naga-inhabited areas in neighboring states under a single administrative unit. Authorities deny the claim (Statesman, 08/12/97).
Aug 22, 1997
Prime Minister Gujral assures a delegation including Manipur Chief Minister Rishang Keishing that there is no question of changing the state’s territorial integrity (Hindu, 08/22/97).
Aug 31, 1997
Since a ceasefire between the NSCN (I-M) and the government was announced some five weeks ago, an army soldier and an activist have been gunned down in Nagaland. Several bomb blasts were also reported on August 15, India’s independence day (Statesman, 08/31/97).
Sep 1, 1997
For the first time in 50 years, hopes have been raised for a final negotiated settlement for India’s longest running insurgency. Analysts believe that a peace agreement with the Nagas could set the foundation for peace in the northeast. The NSCN reportedly provides material and logistical assistance to a number of other insurgent groups in the region (Inter Press Service, 09/01/97).
Sep 10, 1997
Meetings between Naga and government representatives under the auspices of the Baptist Group of America result in an appeal for all Naga peoples to give up violence (Hindu, 09/10/97).
Sep 19, 1997
Reports indicate that Kuki refugees arm men killed 10 Naga villagers and burnt more than 20 houses in Manipur for claiming their land in Naga homeland. On September 16, armed Nagas reportedly killed two Kuki villagers (Xinhua News Agency, 09/19/97).
Sep 29, 1997
Nagaland Chief Minister S. C. Jamir and two former federal ministers survive an assassination attempt when Naga rebels reportedly fire on their convoy near the capital, Kohima (BBC, 09/29/97).
Oct 1997
Militants of the NSCN (I-M) lay siege to the Dayang hydro-electric plant in Wokha district for a week. They reportedly left peacefully following New Delhi’s threat to deploy the army. The NSCN (K) holds a 15-day blockade to disrupt supply routes to Zunteboto district, which is allegedly populated by NSCN (I-M) supporters. Last month, the NSCN (I-M) laid siege for a week to the Kuki-dominated Phaipa Jung village (Statesman, 12/09/97).
Oct 2, 1997
An NSCN (I-M)-called 12-hour strike is held in late September to protest factional feuding among militant groups (Statesman, 10/02/97).
Oct 23, 1997
Nagaland Chief Minister S. C. Jamir says that in the past three months there have been 104 killings in the state due to insurgent-related activities. He says in past years the annual total was 30-40 deaths (Statesman, 10/23/97).
Oct 30, 1997
The ceasefire in Nagaland is extended for another three months. Some 120 people were killed during the first ceasefire period. The government states that a mechanism will be established to monitor the truce. There are reported to be around 5500 armed Naga rebels (Hindu and Statesman, 10/30/97).
Nov 27, 1997
All rival Naga factions announce a complete week-long ceasefire to allow ceremonies to mark the 125th anniversary of the arrival of Christianity in the northeast region. This is first time in five decades such a truce has been reached (Agence France Presse, 11/27/97).
Dec 6, 1997
The Indian government says that talks with the Nagas are on hold until after federal elections slated for next February and March (Hindu, 12/06/97).
Dec 10, 1997
Nagas reportedly kill 10 Kuki tribal members and torch 110 houses in four villages in Ukhrul district, Manipur (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 12/10/97).
Dec 22, 1997
Nagas are allegedly responsible for the deaths of 7 Kukis when a bus is ambushed near Manipur’s capital, Imphal (Deutsche Presse- Agentur, 12/22/97).
Jan 18, 1998
Reports indicate that drug and alcohol abuse is spreading in Nagaland and that there are few job opportunities for a new generation of young people. The state’s budget mostly comes from New Delhi and corruption is reportedly widespread (Hindu, 01/18/98).
Feb 5, 1998
The Naga Hoho (tribal council) and a number of non-governmental organizations ask Naga politicians in Manipur to resign their seats and not to contest the upcoming elections. They fear that the polls will hurt the peace process. Opposition political parties in Nagaland have asked that the elections be postponed while the NSCN (I-M) has called for a boycott (Hindu, 02/05/98).
Feb 8, 1998
The Congress Party maintains power in Nagaland as it is elected unopposed in 43/60 seats. The opposition boycotted the polls fearing it might disrupt ongoing talks between the federal government and Naga rebel groups. Only Congress members and independents contest the remaining 17 seats, 8 of which are won by the Congress (Agence France Presse, 02/08/98; Statesman, 03/29/98).
Mar 1998
The Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party forms a federal government. Atal Behari Vajpayee becomes Prime Minister.
Mar 10, 1998
Kuki militants are suspected in the deaths of 8 Naga villagers in Ukhrul district, Manipur (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 03/10/98).
Mar 24, 1998
Nagaland Chief Minister S C Jamir calls for all factions to unite before holding a dialogue with the federal government. He says his government is ready to resign if a settlement is reached (Statesman, 03/24/98).
Apr 19, 1998
Eight soldiers are reportedly killed by members of the NSCN (K). The rebels assert that they will continue their offensive until India withdraws from Naga areas. The ceasefire between the government and the NSCN (I-M) is now being monitored by a 10-person panel which was established in February. No major violations have been reported since the ceasefire came into effect last August (Statesman, 04/19/98; BBC, 04/27/98).
May 1998
Representatives of the NSCN (I-M) and the new Hindu-nationalist BJP government meet. No substantive progress is reported (Hindu, 06/16/98).
May 15, 1998
The United Front of Assam (ULFA), which is fighting for an independent state in Assam, warns the NSCN (I-M) about encroaching on Assamese territory. The warning follows the reported killing of a family member of an ULFA leader by the NSCN (I-M). Rebel demands for a greater Nagaland include territory that is currently part of Assam, Manipur, and Arunchal Pradesh (Statesman, 05/15/98).
Jun 7, 1998
Thousand of Nagas demonstrate against a government plan to create a new Kuki-dominant revenue district in Manipur. The United Naga Council and the All Naga Students Association of Manipur has also imposed an economic blockade in Manipur to protest the measure. The Nagas assert that the region, the Sadar Hills, is a part of their historical region.

Jul 21, 1998
Some 450 inmates riot in a Manipur jail to protest the custodial death of a Naga militant. They assert that although he was ill, he was not taken to a hospital (Statesman, 07/21/98).
Aug 31, 1998
At a July meeting between representatives of the federal government and the NSCN (I-M), the ceasefire was extended for one year (Statesman, 08/31/98).
Sep 2, 1998
The NSCN (K) is blaming the Isaac-Muivah faction for the deaths of four people in the past week in the capital Kohima. It says that some of them were group members and it accused the security forces of aiding the NSCN (I-M). The Khaplang faction says the unification of all Nagas is required for any progress in talks with the government. In neighboring Manipur, 7 organizations, including Naga bodies, call for a state-wide strike to protest police firing that resulted in 5 deaths (Statesman, 09/02/98).
Oct 4, 1998
The leaders of the NSCN (I-M), Isaac Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah, meet with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in Paris. Vajpayee reportedly stated that secession was not an option as talks must be held within the framework of the constitution (Hindu, 10/04/98).
Nov 13, 1998
The army extends the ceasefire to include the NSCN (K) faction for a period of two months. The move follows appeals from the Naga Hoho (tribal council) and NGOS who have been trying to reconcile the various Naga militant groups. The army says that only a few isolated incidents have been reported since the ceasefire with the NSCN (I-M) came into effect last August (BBC, 11/13/98; Statesman, 11/09/98).
Nov 28, 1998
Six people are dead following recent clashes between members of the two NSCN factions (Statesman, 11/28/98).
Dec 2, 1998
The United Naga Council in Manipur organizes a general strike to protest a government move to create a new revenue district in the Sadar Hills. The district would have a majority Kuki population (Hindu, 12/02/98).
Dec 26, 1998
The NSCN (K) declares a unilateral ceasefire for 20 days and meets with Nagaland’s Chief Minister Jamir to show its willingness to open peace talks. Observers indicate that there is an overwhelming desire for peace among Nagas of all tribes (Hindu, 12/26/98).
Jan 18, 1999
The Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights condemns atrocities against Christians by Hindu militants in various parts of the country (Statesman, 01/18/99).
Mar 29, 1999
Hundreds of women protest in Kohima against last week’s rape of a girl by two men. The All-Nagaland Taxi Association calls for a 48-hour strike as well (BBC, 03/31/99).
May 11, 1999
Naga students blockade a road in Manipur. No reason is given but both factions of the NSCN have been collecting taxes in both Nagaland and Manipur (Hindu, 05/11/99
may 12, 1999
Reports indicate that both factions of the NSCN have agreed to end their rivalry and that a cooling off period is also in effect between the NSCN (I-M) and the Naga National Council (its armed wing is the Federal Government of Nagaland) (Statesman, 05/12/99).
May 18, 1999
After 33 years in exile, the leaders of the NSCN (I-M), Isaac Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah visit Nagaland to promote unification among the various Naga groups (Statesman, 05/18/99).
Jun 1, 1999
Some dozen Kukis refugees kill 9 Nagas in a bus attack near Imphal, Manipur. In the last five years, Naga-Kuki violence has led to at least 1000 deaths (Agence France Presse, 06/01/99).
Jun 9, 1999
While visiting Nagaland, the leaders of the NSCN (I-M), Swu and Muivah, assert that sovereignty must be the basis for talks with the central government. A 1997 referendum in Naga areas reportedly resulted in a 99% vote in favor of independence (Statesman, 06/09/99).
Jun 14, 1999
The NSCN (I-M) offers a 45-day amnesty for members of the NSCN (K) to return to its fold. The NSCN split in 1988. Meanwhile, it is reported that the last round of talks between the NSCN (I-M) and the federal government were held in March in Amsterdam (India Today, 06/14/99).
Jul 11, 1999
No progress is reported in efforts to end the dispute between the two factions of the NSCN following a three-day consultative meeting. It was partly organized by the Naga Hoho (tribal council) (Statesman, 07/11/99).
Jul 27, 1999
The NSCN (unknown which faction) allegedly kills 8 people when it opens fire on a police patrol in Assam. This past weekend, the NSCN (I-M) and federal representatives held talks in Amsterdam (AAP Newsfeed, 07/27/99).
Aug 4, 1999
The ceasefire between the government and the NSCN (I-M) is extended for another year. Reports indicate that the NSCN (I-M) has been able to regroup in the past two years and still has not stopped its recruitment. The organization has also renamed itself as the Nagaland Socialist Council of Nagalim. The term Nagalim refers to a greater Nagaland which encompasses Nagaland and parts of Assam, Manipur, and Arunchal Pradesh (Hindu, 08/04/99; Statesman, 07/30/99).
Sep 3, 1999
More than 1000 Burmese Christian Nagas flee into India asserting that the Burmese junta and Buddhist monks are pressuring them to convert to Buddhism (Asiaweek, 09/03/99).
Sep 4, 1999
Clashes between the two NSCN factions have led some businessmen and government officials to flee Nagaland and take refuge in Assam. Last week, some 10 NSCN members and civilians were killed, Courtesy: Awomi, Naga spear.

sep 6 1999 – 2014

NSCN (IM) stand firm for sovereignty while center(GOI) try to ignore their demand which can lead to more blood shed.

Nagas Soverignty is not given by Indian Government but it was & it will always belong for Nagas, And it is the matter of time but i’m sure Nagas will never ever give up their dream even if NSCN give up. This day Nagas will be totally different in all their way to freedom.

Mr. Kiren Rijiju, really know the history of Naga or he is just driven by power?

Kiren Rijiju was born on 19 November 1971 in Nafra in West Kameng district of Arunachal Pradesh in India.

Political career: He served as a Member of Khadi and Village Industries Commission from 2000 to 2005. In the 2004 general election, he was elected as a member of the 14th Lok Sabha with the help of his father, representing the constituency of Arunachal Western to the Indian Parliament, which is the fourth largest Parliamentary constituency in India and has held the post of National secretary of the BJP.

15th Lok Sabha: In the 2009 general election, Kiren Rijiju was defeated under margin of 1314 votes.16th Lok Sabha: In the 2014 general election, Kiren Rijiju was again elected as a Member of Parliament in the 16th Lok Sabha elections, representing the Arunachal West constituency. He was made Union Minister of State for Home Affairs of India on 26 May 2014.

He study LLB in DU where he could not prove himself as a bright student and now coming to parliament as a hero, I feel ashamed for he represent the face of North-East in his govt. He play a gradual role for deleting the Arunachal Nagas from the ST list in Arunachal parliament and also trying to declare that there is no Nagas in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. He is a young power hunger politician who need to learn a better lessons from Nagas where his teacher did not taught him in the class and not even in their Temple.  He did not study the Naga history nor aware the political crisis of the Nagas but he is a young politician in west Arunachal Pradesh who is blindly against the Historical fact of Nagas and vehemently opposed the claiming our part of land in Arunachal Pradesh. He don’t really know how the North-East state boundary is demarcated from Assam. Thereby, he is very lucky for GOI to manipulate the people of North-East as an agent, by opposing the ongoing Into-Naga peace talk in Prime Minister Level, but trying to solve under constitution of India in state level, which it is totally unacceptable, and all the young educated Nagas will not respect such kind of solution even if they did. He don’t have any right to deny the Right of Nagas by following the political rules of the party, in return it will ruined his political career which he can’t foresee at all. He don’t have a vision at all and how he can be a leader? I really doubt, whether he came to power by using money power or through his family’s name trends, which was totally doubtful to me and for all the educated men in his state. Last year I was in Itanagar, where the dominant NESHI tribe’s friends are not appreciate his political career. However, I really want to laugh a lot like a school boy to know his immature in politics and his campaign in Manipur’s Thoubal district for BJP candidate Maibam Dhanabir. Rijiju was campaigning for the October 17 bye-election to the Hiyanglam assembly seat in the district. He was persuading the people of Manipuri in ‘Manipur integrity’ and opposed to ‘Naga peace talk’ which is logically not valid at all in that election. He was using as an agent by GOI but he failed the trust for the first time of his govt and now, he know that Manipur is not like Arunachal, where he can’t success their families’s win-win policy in every election. Which clearly, shows that he is immature, unexperienced in politic, and who ignore the Historical Right of Nagas for the sake of hunger for power. His policy might be medicine for Meitei but poison for Nagas.

I want to suggest him to speak what is Right & truth but speaking to gain power is not appreciated, which will lead to bleed innocent’s blood. Love your wife and learn from your mistake, because you have long way to go.