The risk, as Human Rights Watch, has recommended, should be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each convicted offender taking into consideration the nature of the crime, prior offending history, the age of the offender at the time of the crime, treatment or therapy history and the length of time an individual has remained offense free. The registry must be periodically reviewed and registrants given the opportunity to present evidence of rehabilitation or substantial time living in a community without reoffending in order to be able to appeal or have the assigned level of risk changed. This, human rights communities in other constitutional jurisdictions have argued, fundamentally shifts the burden from the registrant to the State to prove that the registrant still poses a risk to public safety and therefore must remain on the registry. In 2010, the Supreme Court in UK ruled that denying offenders the right of appeal against life-long registration was incompatible with their human rights. Classification of sexual offenses Sex offender registry must not mix minor offenses in the same category as rape and other violent criminal convictions as there is a danger that registries may cast too wide a net that metonymises heinous crimes such as rape with less extreme ones such as consensual sex between teenagers or innocuous behavior such as urinating in public. Therefore, the Commission strongly recommends that section 5 of the Bill further classifies sexual offense such as rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to rape, abduction with an intent to rape, indecent assault, defilement, sexual assault given that each of these transgressions will carry with it differing penalties under the law. Law must be rational, proportionate, rehabilitative and evidence based and consider the impact of lifelong stigma and barriers to integration and the right to be free from mental and emotional torture and trauma The Committee should also consider integration barriers on registered sex offenders in terms of access to housing, education and employment. Vigilantism, ostracism and community segregation can have far reaching collateral consequences for families of sex offenders. As we strive towards striking a balance between our right, including that of our children, to live a life free of sexual violence and the fundamental human rights of perpetrators while holding them to account, we must also examine the structural causes of sexual violence in Fiji. Submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights on Online Safety Bill, No. 7 of 2018 1st May 2018 Freedom of speech, expression and publication is not an absolute right and consistent with international human rights law (Articles 19 and 20(2) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the state has a constitutional obligation to authorize justifiable limitations in the interests of the protection and maintenance of the right to reputation, privacy, dignity, the right to be protected against advocacy of hatred including hate speech on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination prescribed under section 26 of the Fijian Constitution, the rights of persons injured by inaccurate or offensive media reports to have a correction published on reasonable conditions established by law and the responsibility of preventing attacks on the dignity of individuals, groups of individuals, or respected offices or individuals in a manner likely to promote ethnic or religious ill will or oppression of or discrimination against any persons or groups of persons. Infraction of the right to privacy through the disclosure and abuse of personal data, cyber bullying and circulation of intimate visual recordings including images of victims of violence and unforeseen tragedies and calamities including those of children, the surge in advocacy of hatred through speech acts that are unabashedly misogynist, homophobic, racist and exploit communal differences cannot under any circumstances be justified as legitimate democratic dissent through the exercise of freedom of expression. They all constitute ‘harm’ well beyond the narrow definition of “serious emotional distress”. It constitutes an assault on human dignity and the deprivation of the right to reputation and privacy and the right to be free from hatred. Given the speed and scope of the social media, criminally punishable content is not being deleted in a timely manner or not deleted at all, let alone the possibility of a retraction. In a fundamental sense, we are failing in our constitutional responsibility of preventing attacks on human dignity regardless of FIJI HUMAN RIGHTS & ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMISSION violent predator” and therefore needs to be on the sex offender registry for life. ANNUAL REPORT 2018 39