Muslim rapists, and describe Muslims as “dogs” and “snakes”. 86 At times their discourse amounts to advocacy of hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence which, under international human rights law should be prohibited.87 However, the government has failed to speak out against such incitements. Instead, the authorities have filed charges against people who have supported interfaith harmony or spoken out against intolerance after being pressured by the Ma Ba Tha (see below). Such cases raise serious concerns about the authorities' lack of political will to stand up to pressure from such groups. THE CASE OF HTIN LIN OO Htin Lin Oo is a writer and former spokesperson for the NLD. He is currently serving two years in prison with hard labour for a speech criticizing the use of Buddhism to promote discrimination and prejudice. On 23 October 2014 Htin Lin Oo gave a speech at a literary event in Sagaing Region in central Myanmar. His speech, which lasted for around two hours and was addressed to a crowd of some 500 people, criticized groups that he said take advantage of religion to stoke discrimination. In the days and weeks that followed, a 10-minute edited version of the speech began to circulate on social media. Htin Lin Oo’s comments in this short clip, which were presented out of context, caused outrage in particular among Buddhist nationalist groups. A complaint was filed against him at the Chaung-U Township police station, and on 2 June 2015, Htin Lin Oo was sentenced to two years in prison with hard labour for “insulting religion” under Article 295(a) of the Penal Code. Htin Lin Oo’s lawyer has criticised the sentence, claiming that the decision was influenced by the Ma Ba Tha, whose members had regularly attended court hearings and chanted slogans in an attempt to intimidate Htin Lin Oo’s supporters and put pressure on the judge. He told Amnesty International: “The Ma Ba Tha would assemble in front of the court, chanting ‘long live the Ma Ba Tha, long live U Wirathu’88… The first time we applied for bail, the court didn’t dare release him. The Ma Ba Tha even tried to block me from coming to the court.”89 Unfortunately, Htin Lin Oo’s case is not an isolated one, and at least 12 other people have been either jailed or are on trial facing charges after members of the Ma Ba Tha pushed for criminal prosecutions. They are:  Myanmar nationals Tun Thurein and Htut Ko Ko Lwin, and dual New Zealand/UK national Philip Blackwood, each sentenced to two and a half years in prison after an image of the Buddha wearing headphones was posted on social media to promote their Yangon bar. The image caused outrage among ultranationalist Buddhist groups, prompting complaints from monks aligned with the Ma Ba Tha. In response, an official from the Department of Religious Affairs filed a case against them and on 17 March 2015, Bahan Township Court in Yangon sentenced them to two years’ imprisonment under Section 295 (a) and an additional six months for keeping the bar open beyond legal hours. 90 The three men were released on 22 January as part of a presidential amnesty. See for example, Kaplan, Sarah, “The serene-looking Buddhist monk accused of inciting Burma’s sectarian violence”, The Washington Post, 27 May 2015, available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/27/the-burmese-bin-laden-fueling-therohingya-migrant-crisis-in-southeast-asia/, accessed 22 February 2015; and Swe Win, “With official help, Myanmar’s radical Buddhists target Muslim-owned businesses”, Myanmar Now, 17 September 2015, available at: http://www.myanmar-now.org/news/i/?id=9ba61afc-285d49bd-8f73-8b9efaf941c0, accessed 22 February 2016, 87 ICCPR, Article 20: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” 88 A Buddhist monk who is one of the leaders of the Ma Ba Tha. 89 Amnesty International interview, Mandalay, July 2015. 90 Amnesty International, 'Buddha bar' guilty verdict another blow to freedom of expression, 17 March 2015, available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/03/myanmar-buddha-bar-verdict-a-blow-to-freedom-of-expression/ last accessed 23 February 2016. 86 NEW EXPRESSION MEETS OLD REPRESSION ENDING THE CYCLE OF POLITICAL ARRESTS AND IMPRISONMENT IN MYANMAR Amnesty International 30