X user Jitendra Pratap Singh (@jpsin1), who has amplified communal misinformation on several occasions, shared the video with these claims. (Archive)

X user Riniti Chatterjee Pandey (@IRinitiPandey) also shared the video with claims that the accused youth is Muslim. (Archive)

X account Amitabh Chaudhary (@MithilaWaala) also posted the video calling the accused a “jihadi” for lifting a woman’s skirt and taking inappropriate photos. (Archive)

Fact Check

Alt News tried to find news reports on the incident to verify the claims. A keyword search using terms related to the video led us to an X post by Doordarshan News Shillong from May 29, 2025. The caption made it clear that the incident happened on May 21 in Shillong, Meghalaya, and the local police apprehended a man named Himan Gogoi from Assam for assaulting the school girl. In the video attached to the post, East Khasi Hills’ superintendent of police (SP) Vivek Syiem says that the incident the CCTV footage, which was viral, helped them trace the victim, who otherwise may not have reported the harassment.

A special team of East Khasi Hills police today apprehended one Himan Gogoi, a 24-yr-old man hailing from Jorhat in Assam, for allegedly sexually assaulting a school girl by lifting her apparel taking photographs through his mobile phone on May 21. pic.twitter.com/LWcYowibY8

— DD News Meghalaya (@ddnewsshillong) May 29, 2025

A Times of India report dated May 30, 2025 on the case also identifies the accused as Himan Gogoi, a 24-year-old man from Jorhat, Assam. Citing the East Khasi Hills SP, it said that a team of state police team led by a female sub-inspector travelled to Assam and took Gogoi into custody and confiscated the mobile phone he used for taking the pictures. 

The name makes it clear that he is not a Muslim and that social media users amplified the incident with a false communal angle.

The post Man accused of indecency, harassing school girl in viral clip not Muslim; video shared with false communal claims appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Abhishek Kumar.

Utah real estate photographer Jahshua Grover was simply doing his job, taking photos of his client’s house, when he was accosted by Morgan County sheriffs. Despite the owner of the home arriving on the scene and explaining to the cops that Jahshua was hired to do a job, he was cuffed, injured, arrested, and charged. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report investigate this violation of First Amendment rights and uncover long-term credibility issues with the sheriff who led the investigation, and reveal a troubling pattern of harassment.

Pre-Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: David Hebden, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, to achieve that goal, we’ll break down this video of a photographer who literally could not do his job due to police overreach, a man who was trying to take pictures from a public sidewalk, a task that apparently police determined was illegal, but it’s the consequences resulting from police pushback that we’ll also be unpacking for you today. Oh, in the body camera video I’m about to show you has some pretty revealing moments that show how police feel about us when they don’t think we’re watching or listening, I think you’re going to want to hear what they have to say about citizens who dare to invoke their rights.

But first, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or you can reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter at TEUs baltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, I read your comments and appreciate them. You see, I give out those little hearts down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what incredible community we have. And we have a Patreon called accountability report. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

Alright, we’ve gotten all that out of the way. Now, as we have reported on repeatedly on this show, bad policing does not just result in useless arrests or unlawful detainment. No. The misuse of police power can often lead to disastrous economic consequences for the person on the receiving end. And no case we have covered fits that description more than the video I’m showing you right now. It depicts an encounter between Jahshua Grover and two Morgan County Utah Sheriffs that ended with handcuffs, false charges, and even more disturbing interference with his economic livelihood, namely the apparently dangerous occupation of taking photos. The story starts in the small town of Morgan, Utah. There Jahshua was doing what every American has a right to do, earn a living now for him that entailed taking pictures of properties that were listed for sale. It’s a process that thousands of people do every day to help others sell their homes, but apparently in this community that act was potentially criminal. Take a look.

Speaker 2:

Hey, do you want it’s 97, correct that you work for 97, so I think it’s 97. The end unit down there. We can be detained. Will you go get the real estate agents information real fast?

Taya Graham:

So as you can see, police confronted Jahshua as he was filming. The couple in the background had called the police officers were detaining him to verify his employment because he was again taking pictures. Now I want you to watch this closely as the officers checked out his story.

Speaker 3:

Hey, how you doing? Good, how are you? Good. Sorry to bug you. We’re investigating this minor incident down the street here. There’s somebody out taking photos. Yeah, I

Speaker 2:

Talked to the other officer.

Speaker 3:

Oh, did you talk

Speaker 2:

To you? Yeah,

Speaker 3:

He

Speaker 2:

Has my ID right now, so I was coming out.

Speaker 3:

Oh, perfect. Are you working through a realtor right now?

Speaker 2:

Yeah. You want the number?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, if you have a name and number that would be great. We just want to make sure he’s legitimate.

Speaker 4:

Yes.

Taya Graham:

So we can’t hear every word exchanged between the homeowner and the officer, but it seems pretty clear that Jahshua’s assertion that he was just doing his job is in fact true. Nevertheless, when Jahshua directly asked the officer if he wants to review his work, the officer declines just watch.

Speaker 3:

I don’t know, I’m just jumping in the middle of this so I don’t know what all’s going on. If there was a crime here to investigate, I would accept an investigative detention. But there is nothing to investigate. It’s pretty plain and clear. It’s photos and Well, I’m going to go touch base with him and then we’ll go from there. Okay? Do

Speaker 5:

It quickly because I’m wanting this detention

Taya Graham:

To be over. Now at this point with confirmation that a realtor had been engaged and even the tacit admission that the same realtor was employing a photographer, you would think the police would just walk away, but that is not what they did. Not hardly. Instead they continue and I’m quoting this investigation, just watch, I mean you guys swore to

Speaker 3:

Defend rights. Alright? I don’t need you to educate me, I’m here to help out. Okay? I’m just asking who’s okay, just let us do our job. The one here that’s going to illegally take, let us do our job and we’ll get you on your way. Just relax. Don’t escalate this. Keep it simple.

Taya Graham:

Don’t escalate this. Now, really, who is escalating here? Maybe he should have said instead, don’t assert your rights, which I think has been the real issue throughout this encounter. Jahshua knows his rights and he has again asserted them. And again, as we have witnessed before, time and time again, police, when you assert your rights, have a tendency to retaliate, detained. Stand up here

Speaker 3:

Until I can figure out who you’re, I’m not going to id. Okay, stand up here. You’re required to follow our instructions. I’m not. Why am I being detained? Don’t just stand up here. It’s for our safety and for your safety. I’ll stand over here. Okay? Bring your hands behind your back for me. What did I do? Bring your hands behind your back. What did I do? Get out here. What did I you, you’re not following our orders. Why do I have to follow your orders? Let me put the camera up here so it doesn’t get wrong. Hey, can somebody film this?

Speaker 2:

Hey, I’m not going to

Speaker 4:

Resist nothing. Resist, but why do I

Speaker 5:

Have a lesson learned or something?

Speaker 2:

There are no lessons to learn at already. Sir, you gave you law order and you’re refusing to comply. I told you I didn’t want you sitting on my car right on there. When I’m sitting there trying to do a few things to figure out who you are, what

Speaker 4:

Have I done? What law have broken, it’s possibly voyeurism. That’s what we’re trying to figure

Speaker 2:

Out.

Taya Graham:

Possibly voyeurism. Are you sure? I mean those are some serious detectives. I mean honestly, just forgive my sarcasm here. I mean how exactly did they deduce that crime given the information that they had already gleaned? What made them think that Jahshua was a peeping tom? But it gets worse. So much worse. Just look

Speaker 5:

Real estate photography is what I’m doing. Well we got to figure that all out. That’s what I’ve done for like 12 years.

Speaker 3:

Guess what? We get called to something. It’s our job to investigate. That’s it. What crime? Your right should not be contained.

Speaker 5:

Your camera, body, camera.

Speaker 3:

What am I, my sergeant going to say?

Speaker 5:

What? Crime warrior. Voyeurism? Yes.

Speaker 3:

I think you heard it the first time

Speaker 5:

And what did about voer. Somebody’s who? This is something that’s done all the time. You shoot the outside of the unit to what about sale or somebody calls us and says you’ve had it explained by the only that they’re doing it for real estate. Huh? The owner that I’m doing for that explained to you it’s for real estate. Well, the owner never invited you here. Yeah, they did 97. What I’m shooting for. Why are they saying that? Because somebody else is confused about why I’m taking photos. It’s just a confusion on their end. It shouldn’t be a reason why I’m in cuffs

Taya Graham:

Now I think at this point the officer on the right looks a little, let’s say embarrassed. Maybe. He’s starting to realize that putting someone in cuffs for taking photos and doing their job is a little bit much. I mean notice that not far from this excellent arrest they just made. There’s a sidewalk That’s right. A small swath of land otherwise known as public property. It’s the one place where anyone can take a picture, protest or hold a sign or otherwise exercise their first amendment rights. But of now apparently in Utah, this small but significant piece of constitutional oasis has become a path to criminalization. What an accomplishment. But that officer actually doubles down. Look,

Speaker 3:

The reason you’re in cuffs is not for following our orders for safety purposes. You made that choice. I was. That’s why you’re in cuffs right now. We told you to stand in front of this car where we could see you, period. Why do I have, why don’t be a dumb ass to follow the police fucking orders. It’s simple follow orders. This is to Germany. I don’t have to follow orders. My God, you have no idea what you’re talking about. If I haven’t broken the law investigating it’s simple. I haven’t broken the law. You have a job to do, haven’t broken the law. Just shut your mouth and I’ll explain to you, but there’s no reason to detain me if I haven’t broken the law. We get dispatched to something. You have no reasonable or articulable suspicion. There’s no getting through to you to put me in cuffs. Just keep it. I’m going to make this into a lawsuit, okay? I absolutely have to. I haven’t done anything. That’s your right. Do it. Do it. Enjoy the lawsuit. That’ll go nowhere.

Taya Graham:

Don’t be a dumb ass. I don’t even know where to start with that one, but let me try first. Knowing and invoking your constitutional rights is about as American as it gets, which hardly means dumb. And Jahshua might be wrong or he might be right, but asserting your right to peaceably assemble or petition the government is not stupid. It is in fact the opposite of dumb. It is what we aspire to in a democracy, a fully informed citizenry pushing back against power using the constitution to preserve freedom. That is precisely what the writers of our body of laws intended. So perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, respect the man for invoking his rights instead of insulting his intelligence. But of course this all escalates when Jahshua asks the officers to identify themselves.

Speaker 5:

So your name and badge number, Mr. Crane. Yep. What’s your badge number? Is it part of the policy to get the public?

Speaker 3:

Why are we not

Speaker 5:

Going?

Speaker 3:

Do yourself a favor.

Speaker 4:

Lemme explain something to you. Okay? You’re in a tiny ass area. We don’t have badge.

Speaker 5:

I’m just, I have a call sign, an employee ID number, anything. Okay, well my number is 62, my employee ID number. We don’t have, I would like to know what law is broken. That’s what we’re investigating. Public photography is protected under the first amendment

Speaker 4:

Even and that’s great. If everything checks out, then you’ll be on your way. I don’t know what happened to one. Why am I being detained? What you did to get stuff. He said, Stan,

Speaker 3:

Are you with a photography company or what? And I’m not. I haven’t broken the law. Do you work for a company, yes or no?

Speaker 5:

I’m answering questions. I’m in cuffs.

Speaker 3:

I’m trying to help you out here so we can get you on your way.

Speaker 5:

It’s gets me out of cuff.

Speaker 3:

Okay. This is

Taya Graham:

Ridiculous. To quote them, we’re a small ass town and we don’t have badge numbers. Well, Steven actually asked the police department about this and he will have answers for us shortly, but again, it seems like the officers are simply making stuff up out of whole cloth. How on earth can a law enforcement officer not have an ID number? I mean, if you are detaining someone because he won’t give you an id, then how on earth can you possibly deny him the right to see your id? I mean I’m just not sure how the officers don’t see their own hypocrisy here, but the absurdity of this arrest only accelerates over time. Just watch. When somebody

Speaker 3:

Calls us and tells us camera pointing through somebody’s window, that’s a whole different thing. That’s very likely. Lawyer see pictures.

Speaker 5:

You want to

Speaker 3:

See the pictures. I’ll let our investigating deputy look at the pictures. If that’s what he wants to do. I’m just here to assist him.

Speaker 5:

Then the investigation’s over, isn’t it because you’re not bowering into somebody’s window.

Speaker 3:

Yep. Don’t one quit, do you?

Speaker 5:

I’m going to stand up for my rights. I’m in cuffs for no reason.

Speaker 3:

You’re in cuffs for not following orders.

Taya Graham:

I don’t have to follow orders. You did that to yourself. Now, just to be clear, voyeurism in Utah is defined as taking a picture of someone’s naked body when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, namely in a private residence or in their own room. And if indeed that’s what Jahshua did, it should be easy to discern. All the officers have to do is either ask to see his pictures or if Jahshua declines, get a warrant based upon probable cause to search his camera. And yes, that’s a lot of work, but the officers are the ones who started this. So perhaps they could finish it by adhering to the law, but that’s not what happens. Just watch us trying to figure out who gentle

Speaker 2:

Back people calling us and he wants to play the roadside warrior with us until we figure

Speaker 5:

It out. Now you want to steer me down, try to intimidate.

Speaker 3:

You’re siring me down. You’re the one that’s sitting here. I’m not trying to you making eye contact with me all creepily.

Speaker 5:

What are you talking about? All creepily? Like can you describe it better?

Speaker 3:

Well, you’re staring me down.

Speaker 5:

I’m not staring you down. You’re staring me down. I looked over and you were just mad dogging me because you have a point proof. Just like you tried to hurt my arm when you put these cuffs on me, you did it on purpose. There was no reason for it, dude. You were using more force than necessary.

Speaker 3:

Stop pretending to be a victim here.

Speaker 5:

I’m not. I’m just stating the facts. You don’t like the facts. I understand

Speaker 3:

Your facts are bullshit. They’re not facts.

Speaker 5:

No, they are facts. You were trying to be a little more aggressive than you needed to be for no reason. No, there was no resistance, no nothing.

Speaker 3:

There was no reason for you to not follow our orders. Was there other than being an asshole

Speaker 5:

Other than did a good job of that, that I don’t have to listen to what another man tells me to do unless I’ve broken the law.

Speaker 3:

You clearly dunno what you’re talking about. I clearly do. No, I absolutely know for a fact I do. It’s cute. Keep it up.

Taya Graham:

I honestly have to wonder if this officer is trying to show us, show in under 20 minutes why people don’t trust law enforcement. It’s like a crash course in all the overkill and sense of entitlement that police deny when they’re confronted about it. But this officer seems dead set on proving is actually true. Do you understand, officer? You have a man in handcuffs. Do you realize you detained him without probable cause? Do you even comprehend how unconstitutional your actions are? Unfortunately, I don’t think so because this apparent arrest from hell continues.

Speaker 2:

It is not common practice for him to sit there and take pictures inside people’s houses and stuff. That’s the people that hired him and she goes, no. Every once in a while he’ll take a picture of the whole road to show what it’s attached to and it’s not okay for him to be taking pictures of people’s properties and their personal stuff. She goes, I don’t hire him for that.

Speaker 3:

Oh, so had she hired him at all?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, she hired him to take pictures of this house and this house.

Speaker 3:

Oh,

Speaker 2:

So he was taking pictures of everybody else. He was standing in the very back, in the back of their place. She’s sitting in her house, her blinds are open and he’s standing there with the tripod taking pictures inside her house. Oh no shit. She opened up the door saying, can I help you? Why are you taking pictures of me? She says, I’m doing my job. Takes a few more pictures. She says, well your job is what? Taking pictures of me. He is like, am I trespassing? Am I breaking just like he’s doing with us? Am I breaking the law? Am I doing this?

Speaker 3:

Wow. He did say, for what it’s worth, he goes, he offered to show me the photos that he took. So I don’t know if you want to

Speaker 2:

He or not. He’s been wandering around. Who knows what he deleted. I don’t even give a shit.

Speaker 3:

For sure. Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 2:

So did he give you his date of birth or anything?

Speaker 3:

No. No. I wast give a shit.

Taya Graham:

I can’t believe this, but I think I have nothing left to say only that I would recommend First Amendment training to these officers if he was standing on a public sidewalk and taking pictures of houses. That is not a crime. But since these law enforcement officers seem unaware of the law, I’m just going to let this arrest play out for all of us to see.

Speaker 3:

You’re legally required to identify yourself by the way.

Speaker 5:

So I’m going to be arrested if I don’t

Speaker 3:

Talk to the deputy.

Speaker 2:

What is your date of birth? I’m trying to make this

Speaker 5:

Easy. I’ll give it to you. If you tell me I’m going to be arrested. If I don’t give it to you, I’ll give it to you.

Speaker 2:

You want me to tell you you’re being arrested.

Speaker 5:

If you’re going to threaten me with arrest,

Speaker 2:

I’m not threatening you with anything right now. I’m trying to figure out the situation because your employer is saying at not any given time has she ever hired you to take direct pictures inside people’s or their personal property? I’ve never taken a picture inside. That’s not what these people are saying when her blinds are open. That’s why I’m trying to figure this out. So we can either get you out of here or you and I can sit down and have a more civil conversation about this. So you want to force my information out of me? No, I want to talk to you. There’s no forcing.

Speaker 5:

So my birthday lets you know whether or not I was looking through windows.

Speaker 2:

I’m telling you what they’re telling us. I’m trying to figure this out. Sir, I’m trying to be decent with you. You are the reason you are in handcuffs. I’ll

Speaker 5:

Help you out. That’s a 14 millimeter lens, which is a very wide angle, which is very far, far, far, far, far away. So that corner, you can’t even see into a window.

Speaker 2:

Okay, what is your date of birth so I can make sure that we have everything correct so that we can try to get you out of here.

Speaker 5:

What crime am I being detained for? Just, and then I’ll give you my birthday.

Speaker 2:

Are you shitting me? You want to go down this road? I just want to know. I’m going to go get statements from them about,

Speaker 5:

Okay, I just want know what crime I’m being detained

Taya Graham:

For. You know what? Let’s just keep going. I’m actually at a loss for words at the moment. Just keep rolling the video.

Speaker 3:

So taking photos in public is illegal. No. Okay. But if you were take your photos inside somebody’s home as they’re alleging that is highly illegal. I wasn’t taking photos inside, but that’s what we’re investigating. That’s why we don’t know. Hang on. I have a false, that’s why we don’t know if there’s a crime yet against that’s it’s our job to investigate. We can’t just take your word for it. We don’t owe you. You don’t know me. That’s our job. We’re cops. We investigate shit. Sometimes people allege a crime that didn’t occur. Sometimes people allege a crime that did occur. It’s our job to find out if it occurred or not. We’re

Speaker 4:

Mutual fact finders. That is all we

Speaker 3:

Do. And while we’re doing that, you are required to identify yourself if it’s a criminal violation not to. So if that’s something you want to get stuck with, then that’s on you. We’ll find out who you are one way or another. Be arrested.

Taya Graham:

Let’s try to picture for a moment, no pun intended, the set of facts that would need to be true for the alleged crime of voyeurism to have occurred. And bear in mind, I’m doing this out of respect for the fact that we, journalists are supposed to report both sides of the story. So let’s do so. Fact one, a man drives into your average neighborhood cul-de-sac parks, his fairly noticeable sports car with the attention of taking pictures of a naked woman inside her home, apparently unconcerned that his nefarious plot would be revealed. He does this as conspicuously as possible. First he parked and got out of his car in broad daylight for all to see. Then this cunning paper takes out a tripod out of his trunk of his car and places it on the sidewalk in front of the house where apparently he was surreptitiously seeking to snap nude photos in plain sight for everyone just hoping beyond hope that his timing would be perfect and a naked woman would just then be standing in front of an open window.

And then when police come to investigate this culdesac ur, they learn he’s working for a real estate company. So now the plot thickens, the alleged nudity. Hunter actually took a job with a real estate company, actually several years worth of jobs to take pictures of the exteriors of homes with the hope. Well, maybe really the gamble that one of these exteriors would actually have nestled inside of it. An unsuspecting naked person. It’s amazing scheme. Really what a nefarious and dedicated plan as improbable as it seems, these are the facts that would have to be true for the officer’s suspicions to be confirmed. His entire career as a real estate photographer was all for this one special moment. So with respect for Sherlock Holmes and Watson here, I will play this video to its bitter end.

Speaker 5:

Okay? What’s your name? As long as you guys are saying that by law, I have to, you do enlist multiple times to you and if I don’t do it, I’ll go to jail. Right? There’s a very

Speaker 3:

High likelihood of that. Yes, I

Speaker 5:

Need yes or no.

Speaker 3:

We’re just going by the book, dude. We’re not going. I’ll identify myself. Okay, perfect. Then who are you? Am I going to go to jail if I don’t identify yourself?

Speaker 4:

Yeah.

Speaker 3:

Yes. Okay. Whatever false narratives you want to create in your goofy head, feel for it. Go ahead and try to belittle me. You’re belittling yourself just fine trying to belittle me. I’ve got dispatch on you. You should know how to make your life difficult, don’t you?

Speaker 5:

What? By speaking freely. You got a problem with that by

Speaker 3:

Speaking freely, but you got a problem with it not having any idea what you’re talking about.

Speaker 5:

No. You’re over here trying to belittle me again. You just tried to say I didn’t know what I’m talking about

Speaker 3:

Because you keep trying to put words in our mouth and make drastic assumptions that are completely false guys, you guys make false assumptions about voyeurism and other stuff for a reason to be here. Okay? You guys must be vo again, believe these false narratives you’ve created. That’s

Speaker 5:

Fine. You treat false narratives. You’re just like a Russian. I listen to those Russians lie all the time. Why? They’re doing exactly the same thing. They’re accusing. Yeah, doing okay.

Taya Graham:

Of course, with no evidence that Josh was a voyeur. The investigation took another twist this time to focus on his car. Take a look.

Speaker 5:

Big time investigation. It’s taken quite some time.

Speaker 3:

Which car is yours?

Speaker 5:

It’s taken quite a while to investigate this.

Speaker 3:

This is your car up here.

Speaker 5:

Do I have to answer that question?

Speaker 3:

It’s a simple question. How

Speaker 5:

Is this investigating? Does that help you with the voyeurism claim that you’re making up? It could. I’m about to end this detention. It’s

Speaker 3:

Illegal. You mean the voyeurism claim? That seems very legitimate up to this point.

Speaker 5:

Very legitimate.

Speaker 3:

Yeah. Not even close so far.

Speaker 5:

Not even close.

Speaker 3:

That’s what all criminals say.

Speaker 5:

Oh, now I’m a criminal. Yeah,

Speaker 3:

We’re working on it. We’re trying to find out. You’re trying to find out to a criminal. Yeah, you’re doing that to yourself. No, I’m not. I haven’t done anything wrong. I don’t know why you’re so confrontational. If you’re just cool with us, then we could wrap this up quickly and potentially get you on your way.

Taya Graham:

That’s what all criminals say. I think that’s a telling admission of how police construct narratives. First a criminal than a liar. But really a more accurate description would be a person who actually pushes back. That’s Jahshua’s real crime. A fact that becomes apparent as they continue to search for justification of their actions and along the way, take Jahshua on a perp walk. Just look.

Speaker 3:

I’ve been pushing in the back of my car here for now. My camera home up here. Yeah, I’ll grab it.

Speaker 5:

So I’m going into the back of a cop car now. Still haven’t broken the law. I still haven’t broken the law.

Speaker 3:

I can handle them anymore. I can handle them anymore.

Taya Graham:

And finally, after turning off their body cameras during which they discussed this investigation, police, perhaps the profoundly flawed suspicions are not in fact true.

Speaker 2:

After all this stuff. You got to go today.

Speaker 5:

So I’m being trespassed from public property.

Speaker 2:

No, I’m being told. I’m telling you, you’re not going back and causing any more issues. So you can either get in your car and leave or I’ll take the ticket and we’ll go to jail. I’m trying to make this easy for you. You just don’t get it. You bought this yourself.

Taya Graham:

Appreciate the brake been given and move on. So after all the insinuations accusations, handcuffs, calling him a voyeur and refusing to answer any of his questions, Jahshua is charged with interfering with a police officer. Now forget the fact that generally speaking, this is a secondary crime. It’s pretty clear that along with turning off their body cameras when discussing the charges, no one was taking pictures that was somehow criminal or otherwise unlawful. But this is just the very beginning of the ordeal for Jahshua who will tell us later how this type of police harassment is not just routine but has happened many times before. And he will explain why this keeps happening and how it has affected him when we talk to him in just a moment. But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Steven Janice, who’s been investigating the case, contacting police and researching the law. Steven, thank you so much for joining me

Speaker 6:

Te. Thanks for me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So first you contacted the police department. What did they say? Did they answer any of the questions you had about not having an ID number?

Speaker 6:

We’ll tell you? Yes. I was sent them a very detailed list of questions, including about the officer not IDing themselves or not having a badge number. And then I also asked ’em about what their probable cause was to detain Jahshua in the first place, given that the real estate people had said, yeah, we hired a photographer. So it’s kind of absurd. I have not heard back yet, but we’re going to keep pushing on them also. I tried Facebook, but their comments are muted and you can’t send ’em a direct message. So they’ve really walled themselves off from the community, but we will keep trying.

Taya Graham:

Steven, what aspects of the law do you think inform this case? I mean, for example, how does the First Amendment apply here?

Speaker 6:

Well, the First Amendment is very important because he was on a public sidewalk and that is literally one of the few places where the First Amendment is sacrosanct in terms of the voyeurism charge. It’s very clear that you have to film someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy. So unless they had evidence that Jahshua had taken video of someone who was naked, they had no right to detain him. Now he had offered to let them look at his camera. So it seems like they didn’t have any way or any reasonable means to detain him or even start an investigation. It was pretty absurd and I think the law is pretty clear on that.

Taya Graham:

Also, something happened with the primary officer in the case. Can you tell me a little bit more about Officer Green and what happened?

Speaker 6:

Well tell you, 10 years ago the Utah Department of Public Safety called into question officers green credibility because of some questionable DUI arrest and of course the evidence and some of the circumstances were reviewed and the cases were dropped. So I think it creates some, not just a cloud of uncertainty, but some doubts about the investigation itself. So it’s something we’re going to keep looking into and we’ll report back, but serious questions have been asked and they have to be answered.

Taya Graham:

And now to understand how this encounter has affected him, why police keep targeting him and how he’s fighting back. I’m joined by Jahshua. Jahshua, thank you so much for being here. So what were you doing that evening before the sheriff’s approached you and that woman approached you?

Speaker 5:

I was shooting the interior of the homeowner’s home. I turned on all the lights. I had the blinds open, typical for a twilight shoot or any shoot, and I finished that. I went out to shoot the common space. They had specifically requested photos of the common space, which is usual. And yeah, I stepped out. I wasn’t outside for maybe five minutes. I had taken maybe two photos. I was at the far end of the grass field and I saw a woman step out on her back patio. I really quickly, as soon as I saw her, I said, Hey, do you mind if I take a photo real fast before you get over here? And she completely ignored me. She got a dirty look on her face and started marching towards me and she screamed at me halfway across the grass field and she says, what are you taking photos for?

I replied back, I said, I’m taking photos for my job. It’s for real estate. She continues walking towards me. She gets to where I’m standing and she’s in my face. I kind of try to ignore her. I take the picture and she goes, well, who are you taking the photos for? And I pointed over and I said, it’s for those owners. The house had the lights on the blinds open to me. It seemed clearly obvious. I took my picture, I walked away and she followed me. We got right to the corner of the homeowner that I was shooting for his unit and she goes, well, what’s their names? Then I was frustrated at that point because it’s none of her business. That’s the plain and simple part about it, and she wants to speak to treating me as if I was lying to her. I told her, ma’am, I’m a business and I don’t give away my client’s personal information.

She says, well, I’m going to call them. And we were talking about the homeowners. At some point, her story changed. I said, that’s fine. And I walked away. I went over to go shoot the pickleball court. Her husband approached me. He is got his fist bald and he’s got an angry look on his face. I’m taking pictures of the pickleball court and he’s saying, F this, F that. Getting really angry with me. I chose not to say anything. I knew if I said anything, it was going to escalate it and I didn’t have anything nice to say. And my mother taught me well, yeah, I just ignored him. He got frustrated with me not saying anything, and then he lunged at me like he was going to hit me. I didn’t move. I was carrying my tripod. That’s a formidable weapon. I wasn’t concerned and he turns and walks back to his house.

I went and shot the playground and I was walking back to shoot the front of the house. I hadn’t shot the front of the units yet. The homeowner came home. He pulled up in his truck with his wife and his kids in the car they had left, so they weren’t in the way to take photos. As soon as they pulled up, I let ’em know that their neighbor was having an issue and that they might want to talk to them. We were standing there and that’s when Deputy Boots pulled up. He pulls up, he gets out, he sees me and the homeowner. The homeowner had his baby in the car seat and let him know right away, we’re taking real estate photos, we’re putting our house up for sale. I let him know I’m doing real estate photos. I walked away to take photos of the front of the unit and he started yelling at me asking me what I was taking photos of other people’s property for and telling me that I didn’t have a right to take these photos. And I asked him, have you ever seen real estate photos before? And so at that point he told me that I was being detained for disorderly conduct, for taking photos from the public street of the front of the unit.

Taya Graham:

It sounds to me like you were very professional. You had professional photography equipment with you, including an expensive camera and a tripod. You had the permission of the neighbor, the homeowner who requested the photos, but the police were still called and investigated even though this was explained. What did they initially ask you for and what did you provide them as proof?

Speaker 5:

He immediately wanted to run my id. I let him know that it’s late. I’ve got an hour drive to get back home and I still have business operational things to do, and I need to get these communications out to my client early in the morning. I don’t have time. I’m not going to let you run my id. There’s no reason. I’ve had interactions with police officers before. Most times they don’t even come and talk to me. They just go and let the complainant know they’re doing real estate photos or he is taking photos. It’s not a big deal. Did he come on your property? Ask those types of questions. So I was in the expectation having the expectation of them just saying, Hey, not a big deal. Have a good night. When he wanted to detain me and the things he wanted to detain me before were completely inaccurate. I’m not unfamiliar to misconduct from police officers. I recognized right away what and why they were doing what they were doing, and I’m against that completely. I remained defiant and I wasn’t going to provide them with anything from there.

Taya Graham:

So you provided information that proved you were working as a real estate photographer and you explained to the officer that you shouldn’t be detained if no crime was committed, but you were detained and asked for id. Now understandably, you didn’t think you were obligated to provide it, but the sheriff started escalating the situation by threatening you with arrest. So you gave your personal information what happened next?

Speaker 5:

I provided that information, but that was later on in the interaction after he got to the point where he was going to take me to jail. If I didn’t from the very beginning, the information I wanted was to find what reasonable suspicion he had to detain me. So it was probably 30 minutes into the interaction before I provided my id, but it was only done so under the threat arrest.

Taya Graham:

Now you were hesitant to provide ID and there are people out there who would ask, why were you hesitant? How would you answer?

Speaker 5:

I’ve experienced police abuse in the past, the things that they can do with your name and your identification. I don’t find these as trustworthy people. Not only that, I love my country, I love the constitution. Not all countries have these freedoms or these rights and they should be allowed without question.

Taya Graham:

Now, something I thought was interesting is that the sheriff mentioned cop watchers or auditors. What did he say?

Speaker 5:

He wasn’t really accusing me of being an auditor, but he did recognize some of the language I was using as what his training was. So I think he put the pieces together with the First Amendment protective activities to his recent training about the First Amendment, and I don’t know why he decided to call that all bs, but I’m assuming the training wasn’t sufficient.

Taya Graham:

I noticed that the officer started to use a lot of profanity when speaking with you, when you were asking simple questions like why am I being detained and what crime have I committed? In what other ways was the officer aggressive with you?

Speaker 5:

At the point they decided to put cuffs on me. I don’t know if you noticed in the video, but they had a little code that they used in order to affirm that both of them were on the same page about putting me in handcuffs in that just my simple questions, it didn’t matter what I asked, I just asked very basic reasonable questions. Like when he had his hands on me and had me up against the car, why do I have to follow your orders? It was at that point he cranked this hand. He pushed it all the way up to the top of my shoulder and in doing so, he separated tendons in my elbow and in my shoulder. So the reasons for escalation, I don’t know other than they are unprofessional. I tried to maintain my professionality and conduct myself in a proper manner. I wasn’t cursing, I wasn’t taking things out of proportion, but those that we give our tax dollars to feel like they don’t have to maintain professionalism, I guess when they were doing their duties.

Taya Graham:

So you were in the back of a police car cuffed, even as they discussed the fact that they knew you were there to perform a job. How long did they continue to detain you

Speaker 5:

From that point? In the video where he’s explaining the legality of what I’m doing, it was another 15 to 20 minutes before I was taken out of the cuffs. That speech that he gave is typically the speech that the officers give at the beginning of the interaction to whoever complained and him giving that speech in the way he did shows that he was trained to handle a complaint that is based on such, which is based around photography.

Taya Graham:

What did they say to you about your charges and you also received a secondary charge? A failure to ID months later. Right.

Speaker 5:

So they charged me with interference of a peace officer, and that was the only charge I had at the time. It was six months later I wrote a letter to the mayor and the city council members of Morgan County. I received a secondary charge once again, six months after the fact for failure to ID a retaliatory charge.

Taya Graham:

You believe you are being maliciously prosecuted and retaliated against. Can you explain why you believe that?

Speaker 5:

Just recently I filed motions in my case and I received a memorandum in opposition to those motions. I issued a reply to that memorandum and the reason I did so they have detailed inaccuracies, exaggerations, and lies such as classifying the complainant as a victim. As the Supreme Court has ruled, photography does not cause harm. So his misclassification is fouling up these proceedings and tainting them in the interaction. Before I was cuffed, I was told to step in front of the vehicle and I kept approaching the officer that was in his vehicle. If you look at the video, I actually take four steps back and then I decide to step to the curb. So he’s misrepresenting the facts. A couple other details that were in his memorandum that were completely inaccurate. In fact, his memorandum details that I was detained solely for the act of photography.

Taya Graham:

So how much has this cost you to fight these charges either personally or emotionally or financially, and have you had to get physical therapy for your arm? I mean, basically how has this impacted you?

Speaker 5:

Yeah, it’s had a big impact. I don’t know if you understand this, but when you’re not feeling well, experiencing pain, your motivation to get things accomplished, it diminishes. And so I’ve been taking on less work. I’ve also been taking on less work because I’m representing myself. I know that they did this to me to make me have to waste my time and my money. So I’m representing myself so I don’t have to let them win on that aspect, the emotional, I can’t focus on my work, I can’t focus on my relationship. I’ve got pets that I feel like I should be taking better care of. This is a all day, every day kind of concern. Learning how to suddenly become an attorney requires a lot of time. My ability to even be, I guess as happy about life in general has been difficult, if not impossible.

Taya Graham:

Often people say to me, the process is the punishment. I’ve had victims who are defending themselves tell me that going through the court process is a stress and a harm unto itself. Has this changed how you view police or has it confirmed your understanding?

Speaker 5:

Well, and I’ve also had health conditions. I’ve been dealing with an ulcer and that and the stress and everything. I have not been able to recover from it during this process. It’s been months as you know. It’s been difficult to say the least. In fact, even just right now dealing with this, I’m not feeling well. I’ve made a determination that for every good cop video I see of cops playing basketball with kids and being a hero and providing CPR, all of those good actions get canceled out by how many negative interactions I witness and I view. It’s making it impossible for cops to be heroes. They’re giving something great, which is power and authority and what they choose to do with it is shameful and I’ve lost my respect. I still have interactions with officers that do conduct themselves properly and that I hold them highly respectable. But there are a few that still sign up for an old way of policing that is outdated and not with what the citizens want to see.

Taya Graham:

If you could speak directly to the sheriff’s department and you knew they were listening to you, what would you want to say to them

Speaker 5:

In this interaction? And since I’ve had over a dozen of my rights violated, currently, the Morgan County Sheriff’s Department has their Facebook comments turned off and their online reviews turned off. This is a public forum. This is a violation of the public’s first amendment rights to redress and express their grievances. They haven’t at one point decided to act appropriately or adhere to the law or respect the constitution. What I would say to them, you guys deserve to be defunded. Not all of them but you guys. You don’t need to exist anymore if you can’t clean your house and you can’t act appropriately, step down.

Taya Graham:

Now, usually on this part of the show, I do a rant, for lack of a better word. That is I try to add some context to the case or make a broader point about policing with the idea that we can hopefully event some useful truths about the stories we unpack here. But I’m going to do something different today. I’m going to dig a little deeper into Jahshua’s case. I’m doing this now because I thought you should hear from him first before I explore what has happened since the arrest now that we’ve spoken to him, I want to go through the process. I will call the aftermath. As we all know, the arrests we cover are only the beginning of the ordeal for the people who suffer through them. That’s why we spend so much time speaking to the people who experience questionable detainment, it upends their lives, threatens their jobs, and otherwise turns the world upside down.

But there’s another aspect of being put in handcuffs and thrown into the criminal justice system without justification. I’ve noticed it in case after case a yearning prompts the victim to dedicate themselves to proving one simple fact they did nothing wrong. I think it’s a deeply embedded desire in a society that invests so much in arresting, charging and otherwise labeling people as criminals regardless of circumstance. It’s a need to clear one’s name regardless of the obstacles that in different system often places in one’s way. To emphasize that point, I want to show some of the extra video that Jahshua gave us. It depicts his efforts to obtain the evidence related to his case, specifically the body-worn camera. I think it reveals something beyond the typical and personal bureaucracy that can often obscure and otherwise bury important truths behind laws and regulations. It shows that even when the handcuffs are taken off, there is another potent barrier to obtaining justice. It depict a man who simply wanted to be treated with the presumption of innocence when doing his job, which should define our society and our laws, and that he wanted the government that had been cruelly depriving him of his basic rights to simply acknowledge the truth that he had been wronged. But of course, that did not turn out to be easy. Let’s just watch as he tries and fails initially to get the body-worn camera that we just showed you.

Speaker 5:

So I will be getting the body cam footage and the dash cam footage today.

Speaker 7:

Probably not.

Speaker 5:

How long will that take?

Speaker 7:

I’ll send you the form and it’ll have all the information on it for you.

Speaker 5:

The form?

Speaker 7:

Yeah,

Speaker 5:

I need the body cam footage.

Speaker 7:

Yeah, I’ll give you all the information

Speaker 5:

To fill that out.

Speaker 7:

No,

Speaker 5:

To request it?

Speaker 7:

No, it’ll be denied.

Speaker 5:

You’re going to deny me?

Speaker 7:

Yes.

Speaker 5:

The body cam footage of the incident that I was involved in.

Speaker 7:

Yes.

Speaker 5:

Why?

Speaker 7:

Everything will be, all the information will be provided to you and the statutes.

Speaker 5:

So I’ll just contact the ombudsman?

Speaker 7:

Yes, you can if you’d like.

Speaker 5:

She’s

Speaker 7:

There for,

Speaker 5:

You’re not going to tell me the reason why.

Speaker 7:

Yes, it’ll all be on. I’ll send you all the information.

Speaker 5:

I can’t have access to the body cam footage of the incident I’m involved in.

Speaker 7:

It’s going to be denied.

Speaker 5:

So since it’s civil rights violations involved, it seems as though there’s some corruption in Morgan County and they’re trying to hide.

Speaker 7:

That’s not what I’m saying

Speaker 5:

And suppress this.

Speaker 7:

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

Speaker 5:

I won’t. Well, that’s the fact. If I don’t receive the body cam footage,

Speaker 7:

I won’t. I do the state law. It’ll all be, and then everything as far as the grammar process will be provided to you.

Taya Graham:

Now, this was the first time he requested the body-worn camera, and it was denied under the auspices of the Utah statute. I’m showing you on the screen now. This law describes dozens of exemptions that allow the state government to deny anyone access to public information. I mean, the list is so vast. I’m surprised that anyone can get anything from Utah that the bureaucrats decide they don’t want to release. It certainly puts the work of transparency on the back of the citizen seeking the information. But Jahshua persisted. He asked, not once, not twice, but three times. The reason I wanted to show this video is because it reveals how hard it is to persist and prevail when trying to show that the government has wronged you, how much you must fight, how much red tape you must unravel to reveal the truth, and more importantly, how much the system has been constructed to prevent you from doing so.

I wanted to show this for all the people fighting the same battle as Jahshua, for all the guests who’ve appeared on our show, despite the prospect of retaliation from police or other arms of government, how people when wronged who have everything to lose, still fight against a bureaucracy that can arrest, detain or otherwise destroy them, and they don’t give up and they keep going despite the odds, often without lawyers, usually without support and frequently amid pushback and retaliation from the police themselves. And usually when I ask why they tell me they’re not just pushing back for themselves, not just to be vindicated, but for the community. Their quest for justice is not simply about their own law enforcement predicament, but it’s about a concern for others to ensure that their fellow citizens are not engulfed in questionable arrests or overly aggressive law enforcement. It’s a spirit of communal good, so often missing from today’s political discussion that pits ideologies and factions against tribes and parties.

And yet in our midst among the least empowered exists a group of people who I’ve had the privilege to speak to, people who embody all the best aspects of our constitutional republic, who despite all odds strengthen and bolster the underlying ideals of our body and laws and of our Constitution, people who renew democracy by believing in it. That’s my rant for today. It’s my statement of respect, admiration, and support. Yes, a journalist support for people like Jahshua who keep fighting. I salute him and all our other guests because they are the ones who will save our rights and we must respect them for their work and for their sacrifices on our behalf. I want to thank our guest, Jahshua, for sharing his story with us and his fight for justice. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven, Janice for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Steven

Speaker 6:

Te. Thanks Ami. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R, for their support. Thanks Noli D and a very special thanks to our accountability reports, Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R. David k, Louis p, Lucia, Garcia, and super friends, Shane, b Kenneth K, pineapple Girl, matter of Rights, and Chris r. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police accountability report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at teos Baltimore on Twitter and Facebook. And please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. And of course, if you can hit that Patreon, don’t link pinned below in the comments. We’d appreciate it. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Taya Graham and Stephen Janis.

A prominent Vietnamese writer and karate artist who is hiding and wanted by police said Monday that authorities are harassing his family to try to find out his whereabouts.

Doan Bao Chau, 59, faces prosecution for Facebook posts and interviews with foreign media critical of the authoritarian state ruled by the Communist Party.

He fled earlier this year after police in Vietnam’s capital Hanoi showed him a request for his prosecution but assured him it was “not a problem.”

However, they have repeatedly harassed his family since he left, Chau said.

Chau, who gained fame after losing a friendly four-minute karate match with Canadian martial artist Pierre Francois Flores in 2017, said Hanoi police’s Security Investigation Agency had summoned him on June 21 about a crime report from the Cybersecurity and High-tech Crime Prevention Division.

During the meeting, a security officer showed Chau a document that prohibited him from leaving the country and a file with a request for his prosecution.

The officer said Chau allegedly created and disseminated information opposing authorities, insulting leaders, distorting facts, and causing public confusion through six videos. Most of the videos were of his interviews with activists about human rights or other pressing social issues. An interview he gave to BBC Vietnamese in 2016 was among the videos.

At the end of the meeting, a representative from the Security Investigation Agency told Chau the case against him was not serious and let him go home. But feeling that he might be in danger, Chau fled elsewhere to safety.

Second summons

Two months later, the police issued him a similar summons, but since he didn’t appear on the appointed date, they began searching for him.

“On the one hand, they said they would not pursue my case because it’s not serious,” Chau told Radio Free Asia. “On the other hand, they are hunting for me and harassing my family.”

Chau said police officers have frequently visited his home and called or summoned his wife to their headquarters to ask about his whereabouts.

In addition, investigators raided his brother’s and sister’s homes, suspecting he was hiding there. The police also contacted his son’s teachers and friends for information.

Nguyen Duc Hai, the investigation officer handling Chau’s case as noted in the summons, did not respond to RFA’s questions when asked to verify the information.

As police intensified their search for Chau in December, he re-shared the six video clips, which authorities consider “problematic,” on his Facebook account to assert his innocence.

Chau, who has 175,000 Facebook followers, was previously a photojournalist and contributor to various international newspapers. As an author, he has published six novels in Vietnam.

Translated by Anna Vu for RFA Vietnamese. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Vietnamese.

Hue was arrested in October 2019 for protesting about illegal toll booths and sentenced to 42 months in prison for “disturbing public order” and property fraud. The sentence was reduced by three months on appeal.

Since she was freed in January 2023, Hue has continued to criticize the government on Facebook.

In May this year, she was grabbed off the street by six people, one in police uniform, all of which was captured on a nearby resident’s security camera.

Hue was interrogated for more than 24 hours about her Facebook posts, ordered to stop criticizing the government on social media and told to stop helping political prisoners and their families.

“The persecution of Dang Thi Hue is a stark reminder of the risks faced by those in Vietnam who dare to speak out and challenge the government’s authoritarian rule,” said PEN America Research and Advocacy Manager Anh-Thu Vo on Monday.

“No one should be subjected to threats or reprisals for expressing their views, online or offline,” she added, calling on the U.S. government and other “key state partners” to push Vietnam to release political prisoners, end harassment of its critics and make freedom of expression a priority in talks with Hanoi.

Vietnam was the world’s third largest jailer of writers in 2023, according to PEN America’s Freedom to Write Index.

Radio Free Asia emailed Vietnam’s foreign ministry to ask for a comment on PEN’s statement but received no response. 

RELATED STORIES

Freed activist vows to continue fights against illegal toll booths

Jailed Vietnamese writer honored with international award

US tech giants face human rights concerns over Vietnam investments

Forced off Facebook

Hue has posted hundreds of articles and broadcast many live streams on Facebook in recent months criticizing corruption and calling for support for the families of prisoners of conscience.

To avoid harassment and rearrest, Hue had gone into hiding and she told Radio Free Asia that Thai Binh provincial police have questioned her relatives and friends to try to track her down.

“I think my activities are becoming more and more public and are receiving strong support from the people in Vietnam, including farmers and workers, the weak and powerless,” Hue told RFA Vietnamese on Tuesday. 

“The more widespread my activities are, the more the communist government’s repression of me increases.”

Hue said Facebook has deleted posts, blocked access and shut down four of her accounts with a total 50,000 followers following pressure from the government.

Facebook had not responded to RFA’s request for comment on Hue’s complaints at time of publication.

Translated by RFA Vietnamese. Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

Since late last year, Tajik law enforcement agencies have repeatedly summoned, interrogated, and threatened relatives of five Azda TV journalists in relation to the journalists’ work, according to Azda TV director and chief editor Muhamadjon Kabirov, who spoke to CPJ by telephone. Kabirov said the harassment of the journalists’ family members has been going on for several years but has intensified in recent months.

Separately, four of the five Azda TV journalists feature alongside at least a dozen exiled Tajik journalists in a Russian interior ministry wanted list published by Russian media earlier this year. Kabirov told CPJ there was “little doubt” Russian authorities placed them there at the request of the Tajik government.

International rights organizations regularly name Tajikistan as one of the world’s most prolific perpetrators of transnational repression – the silencing of overseas dissent by tactics including a suspected assassination, rendition, and family intimidation. CPJ has repeatedly documented how Tajik authorities harass relatives of exiled journalists in retaliation for the journalists’ work.

“Tajikistan continues to uphold its dismal reputation as one of the world’s worst perpetrators of transnational repression. Having forced dozens of journalists into exile, authorities continue to hound and harass them by targeting their relatives. No journalist should have to endure the anguish of knowing they are putting their loved ones at risk,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Tajik authorities must stop this appalling practice of transnational punishment. Exiled journalists play a crucial role in delivering independent news and countering Russian propaganda in Tajikistan, and Western governments and journalist organizations should support them.”

Azda TV was formed in 2019 and publishes primarily on YouTube, where it has almost 180,000 subscribers across its Tajik and Russian-language channels, which feature a popular flagship daily news show. The outlet’s website has been blocked in Tajikistan, according to Kabirov.

Kabirov told CPJ that Tajik police and prosecutors have summoned his father, father-in-law, and mother-in-law on “dozens” of occasions in the past months, pressuring them to persuade Kabirov to cease his work and convince him and his wife to return to Tajikistan. Kabirov’s 72-year-old father-in-law passed away from a heart attack the day after one of these repeat interrogations, he said, but added that he didn’t have enough information to say whether this was related to authorities’ harassment.

Tajik law enforcement have similarly harassed relatives of Azda TV presenters Firuz Hayit and Shuhrat Rahmatullo, and journalists Amrullo Nizomov and Mahmadsharif Magzumzoda – at times summoning them two or three times a month over the journalists’ work, according to information from the journalists passed to CPJ by Kabirov. Nizomov told CPJ that police detained his two brothers for a week last September and beat them, and have continued to summon them since, which he believes is due to his work for Azda and critical posts on social media.

Tajik authorities have not officially announced a ban on Azda TV as “extremist” as they have with other exiled media, but in 2022 they justified a seven-and-a-half-year prison sentence handed down to journalist Abdullo Ghurbati in part with his subscription to Azda TV’s YouTube channel, saying the outlet was linked to “extremist and terrorist” opposition groups.

Several Azda TV staff fled Tajikistan along with what reports say could be dozens of journalists in 2015-17, amid a crackdown that followed the banning of the country’s main opposition Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT). Kabirov and several of his colleagues are closely related to prominent exiled or jailed IRPT leaders, while Kabirov is also a well-known human rights activist, and his and his colleagues’ family members have previously been targeted for these reasons, but the journalists told CPJ they are certain that recent pressure is due to their journalistic work.

Harassment of the journalists’ family members has peaked in relation to Azda’s coverage of Tajik President Emomali Rahmon’s visits to Europe in September and April, which accompanied a wider wave of pressure on relatives of Europe-based Tajik activists, Kabirov said, but the harassment has strengthened over the past two years as Azda’s reports have become more analytical and as alternative critical voices have increasingly been silenced.

CPJ has previously documented how Tajik authorities have harassed relatives of exiled journalists Humayra Bakhtiyar, Mirzo Salimpur, and Anora Sarkorova. Last year, Shavkatjon Sharipov, head of broadcasting at exiled news outlet Payom, alleged that Tajik authorities extradited his brother from Russia on what he described as spurious extremism charges in retaliation for Sharipov’s work.

In February, independent Russian outlet Mediazona published the Russian interior ministry’s full database of wanted individuals. CPJ has identified the names of a dozen Tajik journalists on the list: Kabirov, Rahmatullo, Nizomov, and Magzumzoda from Azda TV; journalists Sharipov, Abdumanon Sheraliev, Tahmina Bobokhonova, and Soima Saidova from Payom;  Muhamadiqbol Sadriddinov (Sadurdinov), founder of exile-based broadcaster Isloh TV; independent journalist and activist Temur Varky (Klychev); and ethnic Pamiri journalists Anora Sarkorova and Rustam Joni (Djoniev).

Some of the journalists told CPJ they were aware of retaliatory criminal cases or convictions against them, and others have previously been reported in the media, while Tajik authorities confirmed a criminal case against Sarkorova following the publication of the Mediazona report. Kabirov said he, Nizomov, and Magzumzoda were not aware of any criminal prosecution against them in Tajikistan but that they weren’t surprised  to find themselves on the wanted list. “The Tajik government uses any mechanisms and opportunities to target activists and journalists,” Kabirov said, adding that the Azda journalists “usually avoid travelling to post-Soviet countries” due to the risk of extradition to Tajikistan.

CPJ emailed Tajikistan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Office of the Prosecutor-General for comment, but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Huang Zhihong, who goes by the username Poinsettia, is suffering from deteriorating mental health amid constant surveillance by police in the southern province of Guangdong, said her friend Wang Zhihua, who now lives in New York and who recently spoke with her via video call. 

In the video, Huang is dressed in black and performs a graceful "hand dance" to a mournful background track.

A couple of times during the dance, her hands form the hand signals – often used by street vendors and in regular conversation – to denote the numbers 6 and 4, a reference to the date of the June 4, 1989, massacre of unarmed civilians by the People's Liberation Army with machine guns and tanks.

Public commemoration of the massacre is banned in mainland China, while an annual candlelight vigil that used to mark the anniversary in Hong Kong's Victoria Park has fallen silent after more than three decades, its leaders in prison under a draconian national security law used to crack down on public dissent.

Huang first made the video to mark the anniversary of the massacre in 2021, and uploaded it to WeChat Moments, where it was soon deleted by government censors.

Later, it started appearing on overseas sites not controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, and was posted again to YouTube on June 5, 2022, where it was also picked up by the U.S.-based China Digital Times website.

Unwanted attention

Police started stepping up their surveillance and harassment of Huang after her video dance was reposted to Twitter by the U.S.-based former 1989 student leader Zhou Fengsuo on Sept. 15, 2022, her friends said.

"I seem to have brought disaster down on her," Zhou told Radio Free Asia, adding that he had also messaged Huang to thank her for the video last year.

"They detained her because it was a very sensitive matter," Wang said. "The police seemed to think she had been colluding with foreign forces. But they didn't get any evidence of that even after 24 hours of interrogation," he said.

But because Huang told police that she had never even heard of Zhou, and that he had initiated contact, not her, she was released by police on that occasion, he said.

"Since then, they have harassed her, called her in to 'drink tea', but the most terrifying thing has been the stalking," Wang said. "They park their police car in front of her shop and stand watching her, causing her mental health problems."

Depressed

He said Huang and her 12-year-old daughter are now both suffering from depression due to fears for their safety and that of their family.

Huang has repeatedly declined to respond to media requests out of concern for her personal safety amid ongoing police harassment, and didn't respond to Radio Free Asia's attempts to reach out for comment on this article.

She wrote in a post to WeChat moments in April that she had been approached by local police and questioned soon after receiving her daughter’s newly applied-for passport, according to a screenshot of the post shared by another U.S.-based friend of Huang’s, Xiyan.

Police told her at that time that they regarded her as “unpatriotic,” and said it was in their power to decide whether to let her leave China, as Xiyan already had, the post said.

According to Wang, Huang once described herself as "not a brave person – I just naturally like to dance."

But he said the effect on her mental health has been clear to see.

"She cries the whole time," he said. "Whenever we video call, she cries."

"She complains to me, as her good friend," Wang said, adding that long-term surveillance by the local police had left Huang physically and mentally exhausted. 

According to Huang's friends, she made the video to "express her condolences" after reading about the massacre anniversary online, and without rehearsal.

"It was on the spur of the moment, triggered by the candlelight vigils and commemoration on June 4, and it just felt natural for her to dance it that way," Wang said, citing Huang's account of the video.

"It looks very natural, with just a piece of cloth hung as a background, and I think that really touched a lot of people," he said.

Renewed popularity

Despite the trouble it has brought her, Huang's dance enjoyed another spike in popularity on Twitter earlier this month, around the 34th anniversary of the massacre.

A tweet linking to the video posted by Twitter user @Huaxianzi999 on June 4, 2023 garnered 200,000 views, 434 retweets and 1,426 likes.

Another U.S.-based friend of Huang's who gave only the nickname Xiyan for fear of reprisals against loved ones back home said she had been "shocked" at the video when she first saw it.

"Later, we talked on the phone, and she said the video had been deleted," Xiyan said. "She didn't have any particular intent in mind – she just wanted to express herself in that way."

U.S.-based activist Chen Xiangwei – who also knows Huang – said he had warned her the video could have safety implications for her.

"A lot of people feel this way, not quite right in themselves because they're not allowed to speak out," Chen said. "A lot of my online friends like to speak up for justice on behalf of ordinary people – their existence gives us a lot of hope for this country."

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Wang Yun for RFA Mandarin.

In the early morning of Wednesday, March 29, authorities arrested Prothom Alo correspondent Shamsuzzaman Shams under the Digital Security Act for allegedly spreading “false news” in a March 26 article.

On Wednesday evening, authorities in the capital city of Dhaka opened another DSA investigation into Prothom Alo editor Matiur Rahman, Shams, an unnamed camera operator at the outlet, and other unidentified people, according to news reports, Prothom Alo executive editor Sajjad Sharif, who spoke to CPJ by phone, and a copy of the first information report launching that investigation, dated March 29 at 11:10 p.m., which CPJ reviewed.

Also on Wednesday, Mithun Biswas, a lawyer based in southern city of Chittagong, issued a legal notice to Rahman, Sharif, and Shams demanding they unconditionally and publicly apologize for that March 26 article within seven days or face legal action, according to news reports and a copy of the notice reviewed by CPJ.

On Thursday morning, Shams appeared before a Dhaka court and was denied bail, according to news reports. Authorities had not arrested Rahman or the camera operator as of Thursday evening, Sharif said.

“Bangladesh authorities’ harassment of staff members with the Prothom Alo newspaper and the arrest of correspondent Shamsuzzaman Shams under the draconian Digital Security Act are clear attempts to quash critical reporting,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director. “Authorities must immediately release Shams and cease abusing the legal process against journalists, which produces a chilling effect on the media.”

That March 26 article and a post on Facebook briefly used a child’s photo to accompany a quote from an adult laborer about price hikes; the outlet swiftly removed the Facebook post and re-published the article on its website and Facebook page with a correction.

The investigation opened Wednesday night by the Ramna police station in Dhaka was sparked by a complaint by Abdul Malek, a lawyer who said the accused had used “print, online and electronic media to tarnish the image and reputation of the state” and displayed that erroneous image. When reached by phone, Malek told CPJ that he stood by the allegations in the complaint, and the journalists should be punished for their work “against the independence” of the country.

Police are investigating the accused under three sections of the Digital Security Act pertaining to the transmission or publication of offensive, false, or threatening information; publication or transmission of information that deteriorates law and order; and abetment, according to the first information report.

The first two offenses can carry a prison sentence of three to seven years and fines of 300,000 taka to 500,000 taka (US$2,797 to $4,662), according to the law, which says abetment can carry the same punishment as committing an offense itself.

CPJ called and messaged Abu Ansar, the investigating officer in the case, and Roy Niyati, a Dhaka metropolitan police spokesperson, for comment, but did not receive any replies.

CPJ called the phone number listed for Biswas in his legal notice, but received an error message. CPJ was unable to immediately find other contact information for him.

In February, CPJ joined civil society organizations in a letter calling on Bangladesh to cease the judicial harassment of Prothom Alo special correspondent Rozina Islam, who faces an ongoing investigation under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act and the penal code in apparent retaliation for reporting on alleged corruption in the public health sector at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

For years, Chinese American dissidents in New York have suspected that China’s powerful and ubiquitous intelligence services had infiltrated their ranks and were tracking their every move.

“We operate under the assumption that no secret can be kept from the Chinese Communist Party, except maybe very sensitive ones,” said Chuangchuang Chen, a law student at St. John’s University and leading pro-democracy activist in Queens.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

On Wednesday, Chen and other dissidents got new evidence of just how deep and aggressive China’s pursuit has become. U.S. prosecutors announced charges in three major cases that they say depict the alarming reach of Chinese intelligence in the United States. In one case, FBI agents arrested a 73-year-old dissident leader who is accused of spying on his fellow activists for 17 years. In the other cases, prosecutors said, Chinese spies recruited U.S. operatives, armed them with generous budgets, elaborate cover stories and high-tech gear, and sent them across the country to target Chinese Americans, including a congressional candidate on Long Island and a sculptor in Southern California.

The high-profile U.S. prosecutions are part of a stepped-up counteroffensive against an increasingly brazen adversary. Wednesday’s announcement at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., came after months of public concern — including extensive reports by ProPublica — about the Chinese regime’s global campaign to harass, threaten, kidnap or imprison its critics and their families. ProPublica detailed one case in which a Chinese police officer slipped into the U.S. and deployed a team of Chinese and U.S. operatives, including a former New York City police detective, to spy on a New Jersey couple and force them to return to China.

During the press conference, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen, head of the DOJ’s national security division, described “an alarming rise in transnational repression” and warned that China and other “authoritarian states around the world feel emboldened to reach beyond their borders to intimidate or exact reprisals against individuals who dare to speak out against oppression and corruption.”

All three cases unveiled Wednesday grew out of FBI counterintelligence investigations in the Eastern District of New York, where neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn have long been home to many Chinese Americans. Immigrants in such areas often fear that reporting acts of repression will result in retaliation against relatives in their former country. The FBI has been urging victims to come forward, creating a website with information and instructions in 28 languages.

“We have dozens of transnational repression cases,” said FBI Assistant Director Alan E. Kohler Jr., who leads the counterintelligence division, at the press conference. “However, we believe we should have hundreds.”

Reacting to the charges at a daily press briefing Thursday, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry said he did not know the specifics but denied that his government engages in such activity.

“We have never asked and will never ask Chinese citizens to do things in violation of local laws and regulations,” said the spokesperson, Zhao Lijan, in comments posted on the website of the embassy of China. “The accusation of ‘transnational repression schemes’ is totally made out of thin air. The US attempt to hype up ‘China threat’ and tarnish China’s reputation is doomed to fail.”

The clandestine tactics and methods described in the New York cases resemble those at the heart of a groundbreaking federal indictment of police officials and prosecutors from the city of Wuhan in 2020. ProPublica later determined that the lead officer in that case had slipped in and out of the U.S. pursuing other targets for several years, eluding detection by law enforcement. The defendants in the Wuhan case were part of Operation Fox Hunt, President Xi Jinping’s worldwide campaign to forcibly repatriate thousands of Chinese nationals accused, justifiably or not, of corruption.

The new prosecutions allege that, as in many Fox Hunt cases in North America, Chinese spies recruited teams of local operatives, often private detectives who conducted surveillance and gathered intelligence on targets. The New York-based detective hired in the Wuhan case has pleaded innocent, claiming he was duped by Chinese operatives claiming to represent a company hunting for an embezzler.

But some revelations in the new cases are unusual. Prosecutors took direct aim at the Ministry of State Security, China’s secret political police, charging an MSS officer named Qiming Lin with interference in the U.S. electoral process. Olsen said he was not aware of a previous case in which charges were filed against Chinese state officials for trying to sabotage a U.S. electoral candidacy.

Lin had discussed resorting to violence, such as a beating or a staged accident, to prevent a Chinese American candidate from winning an election in a congressional district on Long Island, authorities say.

“In the end, violence would be fine too,” Lin told a U.S. private investigator, according to a voice message transcript in a criminal complaint. “Huh? Beat him [chuckles], beat him until he cannot run for election. Heh, that’s the-the last resort. You-you think about it. Car accident, [he] will be completely wrecked [chuckles], right? Don’t know, eh, whatever ways from all different angles. Or, on the day of the election, he cannot make it there himself, right?”

The allegations stand out because, in general, Chinese intelligence officers have been less likely to engage in violence in the West than their counterparts from Russia and other authoritarian nations.

Lin also instructed the investigator to look for compromising information about the candidate’s personal life and suggested trying to orchestrate a scandal involving a prostitute, according to the complaint. He said his spy agency had set its sights on destroying other politicians as well.

“Right now we will have a lot more-more of this in the future. ... Including right now [a] New York State legislator,” Lin said, according to the transcript. “[T]here are, uh, some-some, uh who speak negatively about China. ... The people who always speak up, you need to pay attention to them. If possible-possible to get some information, then this side will hold you in very high regards in the future.”

Authorities did not identify the intended victim, but their description resembles that of veteran dissident Xiong Yan, who participated in the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square, became a U.S. citizen and served in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Yan is running for Congress in New York’s 1st District on Long Island. Media reports Wednesday quoted him as saying he had first heard about the case from journalists.

Prosecutors charged Lin with interstate harassment and the illegal use of identity information. Lin had come to New York to meet with the private investigator, who was not identified, in the past, but he is now believed to be in China, prosecutors said.

Olsen said the FBI arrested two Long Island men at the heart of a second case Tuesday: Fan “Frank” Liu, a wealthy U.S. citizen who runs a media company in New York, and Matthew Ziburis, a former Florida corrections officer turned professional bodyguard. The pair’s alleged exploits show the kind of resources that Beijing is accused of pouring into cross-border repression. Ziburis earned more than $100,000 for stalking dissidents in California, Indiana and Thailand last year while Liu, who hired and directed him, received more than $3 million from accounts based in Hong Kong, according to a criminal complaint.

The two men were hired by an intermediary for the Chinese government to discredit prominent dissidents, prosecutors said. The targets included the sculptor of a statue titled “CCP Virus,” which depicted the coronavirus with the face of Xi, the complaint alleges. The suspects instructed a private investigator to bribe an Internal Revenue Service official to provide them with the artist’s tax records in hopes of finding damaging information, authorities said. In reality, the private investigator was cooperating with the FBI and there was no IRS official, authorities said.

To gain access to the targets, the conspirators devised elaborate cover stories, with Ziburis presenting himself variously as an art broker and a journalist, according to the complaint. Their equipment allegedly included a GPS tracker, secret microphones and a surveillance camera that provided a live feed monitored in China. Prosecutors charged Qiang Sun, a China-based employee of an international technology company, with serving as an intermediary between the Chinese government and the U.S. suspects. He remains at large.

The charges in the case include acting as illegal foreign agents, attempted bribery of a federal official and interstate stalking.

The final case detailed Wednesday highlights another trademark of Chinese spymasters: the long game.

The investigation centers on Shujun Wang, 73, a military historian and former college professor who has been prominent in dissident circles for almost two decades. Wang first came to the United States as a visiting scholar in 1993 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2003, authorities said. Three years later, he was among a group of leading Chinese dissidents who founded the Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang Memorial Foundation in the Chinatown area of Flushing, Queens. Wang served as secretary general of the foundation named for two reformist figures of the Chinese Communist Party.

But by then, authorities say, Wang was already a highly placed mole who had infiltrated the movement in New York.

“Emails, chat communications, WANG’s own admissions and other evidence show that, beginning at least in or about 2005, while acting under the direction and control of [People’s Republic of China] and MSS officials, WANG reported to the MSS information about Chinese dissidents and members of the Chinese democracy movement in the United States and elsewhere,” the complaint says.

Wang operated under the direction of four senior MSS officers whom he has identified in questioning by FBI agents, the complaint says. He allegedly filed meticulous reports in face-to-face meetings during visits to China, via a messaging app, and in “diaries” that he wrote in draft emails accessed by his handlers. It is not clear when the FBI first began investigating him, but the complaint details alleged crimes beginning in 2016.

Wang’s communications, according to the complaint, show he focused on the top targets of the authoritarian regime: those involved in the causes of Tibet, Taiwan, the Uyghurs, Hong Kong and the pro-democracy movement. He allegedly kept the MSS informed about conversations, meetings, protests and other activities in granular detail.

“In a March 2019 diary entry, WANG listed possible speakers and attendees at a Tiananmen Square massacre memorial protest in New York,” the complaint says. “According to WANG, one speaker identified by name was to deliver an ‘hour long’ speech and describe his feelings ‘without any reservations.’ WANG further stated that he had not heard from a well-known Taiwan democracy organization; that nothing dramatic occurred at a 50th birthday party in Flushing which 80 people attended; that a known anti-Chinese Communist Party protestor would likely attempt to block Xi Jinping’s car when Xi visited President Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida; and that people in New York were not enthusiastic about ‘the democratic movement’ because the Tiananmen Square protesters were too old now.”

Wang also helped shadow a well-known leader of the Hong Kong democracy movement, reporting to the MSS about meetings and telephone calls with him, the complaint says. Hong Kong authorities arrested the activist last year.

FBI agents arrested Wang Wednesday on charges of acting as an illegal foreign agent, misusing identity information and making false statements. Although the unmasking of a seasoned leader might seem devastating, many of Wang’s associates had had suspicions for years, said Chen, the Queens dissident.

“People told me to be careful around him,” Chen said. “He was seen as an active spy. It was a public secret. In our circle, we have known he was being monitored by the FBI for some time.”

Dissidents had suspected Wang because of his ability to travel frequently to China without being arrested or bothered by the authorities there, Chen said. They believed he had frequent contact with officials at the Chinese consulate in New York as well, Chen said. They reported him to the FBI, kept their distance and waited, knowing that U.S. counterintelligence agencies can also play the long game.

If the FBI keeps looking, it will find similar Chinese repression operations going on around the country, Chen predicted. He named the likely hotbeds: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta.

The newly announced cases are “the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “But it’s a good step. Very good step. I applaud it.”

In an initial court appearance Wednesday, Liu denied the allegations through an interpreter. He, Ziburis and Wang were released on bond. Their lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Sebastian Rotella.

A joint statement signed by 51 groups specifically points to how authorities have handled members of the Labor Rights Supported Union of Khmer Employees of NagaWorld, most of whom are women.

Since striking from the hotel and casino in December 2021, the workers have been subjected to violence, imprisonment and the arbitrary application of COVID-19 measures, the letter from the groups states.

“Women strikers have been repeatedly and disproportionately targeted by government efforts to disperse the peaceful strike,” the groups said.

Authorities have denied the women access to bathrooms near the strike site, prevented them from returning home until after dark, and followed them once they were allowed to leave.

On Tuesday, a male officer grabbed and squeezed the breast of one woman while she was being forced onto a bus, the groups said. Similarly, on Dec. 29, state authorities used vulgar sexual language with a striker and threatened to sexually assault her.

Among the groups that signed the joint statement were the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association, the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, the Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights, and the Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia.

Their statement says that in February, the strikers repeatedly complied with governmental orders to undertake multiple COVID-19 virus tests and fulfilled quarantine orders.
Despite meeting the terms, 64 workers were forcibly taken to a quarantine facility on Monday as they tried to resume their strike. They were allowed to return home later that evening after complying with further COVID-19 testing, the groups said.

But on Tuesday, authorities took 39 strikers to the same quarantine center that lacks beds and water for drinking and bathing. On the following day, authorities escorted 51 additional strikers to the facility.

Each of the workers has been fined up to 2 million riels (U.S. $470) for allegedly violating COVID-19 measures as they tried to resume their strike, the groups said.

Thousands of employees from the Hong Kong-owned NagaWorld Casino in Cambodia’s capital walked off the job in mid-December, demanding higher wages and the reinstatement of eight jailed union leaders and nearly 370 others they said were unjustly fired from the casino.

Eleven members of the Labor Rights Supported Union of Khmer Employees of NagaWorld, including seven women, have been arrested since December 2021, and are being held in pre-trial detention, the groups said in their statement. The women have been charged with incitement to commit a felony and face up to two years in prisons if convicted.

Phnom Penh City Hall security personnel rounded up another 27 strikers on Thursday and took them to a quarantine facility on the outskirts of town where about 90 other workers picked up during other strikes are being also held.

Authorities released 35 workers from the larger group, without providing them with transportation home, and sent four workers who tested positive for COVID-19 for treatment, according to one of the workers.

Authorities wanted to release more employees, but the workers refused to leave until everyone in the group was let go, said the woman, who declined to give her name.

Phnom Penh City Hall issued a statement on Thursday denying that security personnel sexually harassed the striking casino workers and accused the NGOs of issuing false information about COVID-19 prevention measures.

Authorities found that several strikers they had rounded over the past few days to be COVID-19 positive, the statement said.

“It is outrageous to have statements accusing the authorities of using violence, including sexual harassment, against the women workers,” the statement said.

The statement said that strikers with evidence of harassment file legal complaints.

Authorities also said journalists had issued statements “contrary to the fact.” But they prevented local and foreign reporters from covering the round-up of workers on Thursday, spraying hand sanitizer on the journalists’ equipment in some cases. They also prohibited human rights monitors from recording incidents of harassment.

RFA could not reach City Hall officials or Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan for additional comment.

Reported by RFA’s Khmer Service. Translated by Samean Yun. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.