The Eurovision Song Contest gives a platform to some of Europe’s outliers on free expression. Photo: Sander Hesterman (EBU) / Eurovision 2013

This weekend, Europe will once again be swept away by a sparkly hurricane of techno beats and pompous ballads, kitschy and/or traditional costumes, wind machines, pyrotechnics, heavily accented English, awkward host banter and nul points. Yes, Eurovision is upon us, Milana Knezevic writes.

While first and foremost a showbiz spectacle, if you look beneath the layer of sequins you’ll soon discover the political tinge to the continent’s premier singing competition. From the start in 1956, it was designed as fun way of testing out new broadcasting technology. Those partial to the occasional conspiracy theory would have you believe this was also a convenient cover for pan-European satellite testing during the Cold War, which is why NATO members Turkey and Israel were invited to the party.

With the lifting of the Iron Curtain and the inclusion of the Eastern Bloc in 1990, much was said about the healing, unifying power of the contest. Since then, even more has been said about the tendency of the late arrivals to share their points amongst themselves. The UK, for instance, have been vocal about political, neighbourhood voting being the cause of their recent Eurovision failings, rather than, say, sending entries like this. And while Eurovision, somewhat censoriously, prohibits political songs that has not stopped artists from trying to get their meaningful messages across.

The most famous recent example is perhaps Georgia’s pun-tastic 2009 offering “We Don’t Want To Put In’‘, to be performed at final in — you guessed it — Moscow. They were told to change the song or drop out, and ultimately chose the latter. Krista Siegfrids, Finland’s entrant this year, has warned she might be planting a kiss on one of her female dancers in protest at her country’s failure to adopt equal marriage legislation.

Most significantly, Eurovision gives its entrants prime time access to some 800 million viewers around the world – an unparalleled platform on which to promote their nation should they choose to. Many have jumped at the opportunity, chief among them the land of fire; Azerbaijan. As 2012 hosts, the Aliyev regime poured millions of their significant oil wealth into reforming their international reputation as a repressive hereditary dictatorship. The only problem with this otherwise foolproof plan was that they forcefully evicted  people to make room for an ambitious Eurovision-inspired urban renewal project in Baku, attacked journalists covering and speaking up about it, and generally conducted their notoriously human rights abusing business as usual. Not much has changed since the party left town a year ago — only this week, the regime announced they have extended libel laws to online speech ahead of October’s presidential election.

Before that, 2009 hosts Russia attempted to dazzle Europe and the world, with a spectacular stage show in the 25,000 capacity Indoor Olympic Arena in Moscow. However, LGBT activists seized the opportunity to shine the spotlight on the country’s poor record on gay rights, attempting to stage a Slavic-wide Pride parade on the day of the final. In a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression and assembly, the parade was banned. Many of the protesters who showed up anyway, were attacked and arrested. LGBT rights remain poor in Russia, with a 100-year ban on pride parades in Moscow announced only last year. The charm offensive of last year’s singing, dancing, baking grandma entry has this year been followed by the John-and-Yoko-esque ‘What If?‘, which among other gems, contains the lyrics “Together we can make a better place/ On this little island out in space”. Meanwhile, in Russia, internationally funded NGOs have to register as ‘foreign agents’, or risk fines and prison time.

You don’t have to host to be able to host to take full advantage of the promotional platform Eurovision. Like Belarus, you can condense your message to fit the 3-minute performance slot. In 2011, the country known as Europe’s last dictatorship sent Anastasiya Vinnikova to perform the subtly named “I Love Belarus“. Somehow, it didn’t progress to the final. Maybe the rest of Europe had some trouble reconciling the country described in the song, with its “fields full of gold” and “free, friendly and young people”, with the country where you’re put in prison for pointing out that your repressive dictator is, well, a dictator.

Also in the running this year is Hungary, the country with some of the most draconian press regulation on the continent. There’s Ukraine, where the former prime minister is serving a seven-year jail sentence for what is widely recognised as politically motivated charges. In Italy, the final will be broadcast on public broadcaster RAI, one half of the TV duopoly that poses a big threat to the country’s media plurality. In Greece, financial woes have also had a pretty detrimental effect on freedom of expression. Bulgaria’s web of cosy relationships between authorities and media leaves the country without an accurate picture of itself.

Yes, Eurovision is first and foremost one of the biggest parties in the world. However, as you’re watching the spectacle unfold on Saturday, spare a thought for the Europeans who are not as free to express themselves as their fellow countrymen on stage in Malmo.

The post Glitz and glamour can’t hide Eurovision’s politics appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In the run-up to the 12 May parliamentary election, former ruling party GERB received the most mentions in Bulgaria’s media, ahead of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), and the Turkish minority movement DPS — mirroring the election results.

Media coverage, however, does not accurately capture the gap between parties. GERB was mentioned 3,642 times in election coverage — 80 per cent more than BSP. In the polls, the difference between the two parties was less than four per cent.

Bulgaria’s media grants over-exposure to those in power, and the industry seems to quickly adapt to a new political situation. While the New Bulgarian Media Group (NBMG) editorial stance was against the GERB in the 2009 elections, it changed its tune almost overnight after the party’s victory.

Given the close ties between the media and political parties in the country, distorted election coverage is not very surprising. For instance, a high-ranking DPS member owns the NBMG, which owns the Telegraph, the highest circulated newspaper in the country.

The tangles between politics and the Bulgarian media has drawn the attention of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In a report released ahead of the election, the body expressed concerns over the “growing concentration of media ownership in the hands of a restricted circle of business people.” According to the OSCE, this “raised concerns about the independence of media from undue economic and political pressure.”

“Most media find themselves in a passive position and practically shun their most important function — to build an informed public opinion, and through that to support the political choice of the people”, says Orlin Spassov, professor of journalism at the University of Sofia. “The result of this campaign was a deficit of informed choice.”

Bulgaria has measures put in place to distinguish editorial content from political advertisements for broadcast media, but not for the press. The OSCE pointed out that “paid media coverage is often not labelled as such, thus potentially misleading the audience about the nature of the reporting.”

Bulgaria’s murky relationship with the press also creates trouble for journalists, who sometimes feel pressure for their reporting. In April Boris Mitov, a journalist for news site Mediapool.bg was summoned for questioning by prosecutors after writing an article accusing a Sofia deputy city prosecutor of illegal wiretapping. The prosecutors placed pressure on Mitov to reveal his sources, and after he refused to do so, they reportedly told him that he could face up to five years in prison for disclosing state secrets.

More troubling is the culture of self-censorship arising from pressure placed on journalists from business groups. Most common is economic pressure — which trickles down from media outlet owners to editors and reporters. The NBMG group, for instance, is largely financed by the Corporate Commercial Bank (CCB). The CCB has also held a large percentage of state-owned enterprises in the transport, energy, and defence sector — which means that NBMG is practically financed with public funds. This helps explain why the group is often cosying up to those in power.

While infrequent, sometimes journalists face direct threats from businesses. After writing a series of articles critical of a local business group last year, investigative journalist Spas Spassov received Sun Tzu’s book The Art of War in the post. Included was a note quoting a line from the book: “You should avoid those you can’t either defeat or befriend.”

The most recent election results, however, have left an unclear picture of who is in power: since no party has gain

ed a majority in Parliament. Coalition building was undermined by a deeply polarising election — which means that the media will have a difficult time knowing who to pledge allegiance to.

The post Bulgaria’s government mirrored in the media appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The existing draconian penalties for criminal defamation and insult have been extended to online content, including Azerbaijan’s vibrant social networks, and public demonstrations. The permitted length of “administrative” detention – detention without referring to a court – is now much greater for many offences.

“The amendments seek to ban criticism and increase the cost of dissent. They are designed to silence all those who continue to speak out despite the already and increasingly repressive climate,” the undersigned organisations said.

“By extending the offences of criminal defamation and insult to a broader range of public expression, including online expression and public demonstrations, Azerbaijan is breaking the commitments to reform made by President Ilham Aliyev and moving against the international trend to decriminalisation. At the same time, the police are given a free hand to administratively detain anyone for up to two months for organising an unauthorised protest or for disobeying them.”

“With just months to go to a presidential election in October, the authorities are clearly more determined than ever to intimidate critics of the regime, in particular online. The environment for freedom of expression is declining by the day as journalists, bloggers and opposition activists are subjected to mounting pressure that includes increasingly repressive laws, arrests, physical attacks and smear campaigns.”

“The international community must, as a matter of urgency, remind the Azerbaijani government of the undertakings it has made to protect the right to freedom of expression, including online, and ensure Azerbaijan implements the legal reforms necessary to meet these commitments.”

Regressive provisions on defamation and insult

The offences of criminal defamation (article 147 of the penal code) and insult (article 148 of the penal code) have been amended to include expression on the Internet and expression at public demonstrations. The maximum penalties for both offences remain six months imprisonment, although this may be extended to three years imprisonment for aggravated instances of defamation (Article 147.2 of the penal code).

The inclusion of all expression on the Internet broadens the scope of criminal defamation significantly, suggesting that communications on social network sites could give rise to criminal liability. This is particularly concerning since constraints on political activism and a lack of media diversity have made the Internet the main refuge of freedom of expression and political dissent in Azerbaijan.

“The amendments to the criminal code passed by the parliament are a blatant political move and a shabby attempt to hijack online freedoms amid a mounting pre-election crackdown’, said Emin Huseynov, chairman of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS).

These amendments have again proven what little importance the Azerbaijani government has attached to its pledges to decriminalize defamation. President Aliyev has been undertaking to do this since 2006, and according to the “National Programme for Reinforcing Human Rights,” adopted in 2011, it should have been done in 2012.

These amendments also directly contradict undertakings that Azerbaijan has given to the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Restrictions on right to protest

The other amendments adopted on 14 May lengthen the permitted period of administrative detention for many offences, including those relating to the expression of dissent. The penalty for “organizing an unauthorized demonstration” (Article 298 of the code on administrative offences), for example, has been increased from 15 to 60 days. The penalty for “disobeying the police” is increased from 15 to 30 days (Article 310 of the code on administrative offences).

This move further limits the climate for Azerbaijani citizens to exercise their right to freedom of assembly. No protests have been sanctioned in the centre of the capital Baku since 2006, leading many to feel that they have no choice but to participate in unsanctioned protests. In November 2012, amendments were made that exorbitantly increased the administrative fines for those participating or organising unsanctioned protests. For example, the maximum fine for participating in unsanctioned public gatherings was increased from 955 EUR to 7,600 EUR.

In January 2013, the same month the November 2012 amendments came into effect, there was a wave of public protests both in Baku and elsewhere. More than 20 people were issued fines while a number of people were sentenced to several days in administrative detention, including the well-known blogger, Emin Milli (who received the then maximum of 15 days). An opposition leader and potential presidential candidate, Ilgar Mammadov, was arrested on 4 February 2013 after travelling to Ismailli, the site of another recent protest, and was charged with “organising mass disorder” and “violently resisting police”. He has remained in pre-trial detention ever since and his appeal for bail was denied on 8 April. More than 50 Azerbaijani civil society organisations believe Mammadov’s arrest to be politically motivated.

Harassment of the media

The legislative vice has been tightened at a time when journalists and bloggers are being constantly harassed. Yafez Akramoglu, a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s (RFE/RL) Azerbaijani-language service reported yesterday that he was threatened by a Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic security official five days ago while reporting on the Nakhchivan diaspora in Istanbul.

RFE/RL issued a public protest a few weeks ago about the harassment of two of its journalists, Khadija Ismayilova and Yafez Hasanov. The intermittent smear campaign against Ismayilova  resumed at the end of April 2013 with the posting of obscenely doctored photos on a new pro-government propaganda site. Hasanov, who is based in Nakhchivan, has since 4 April been the subject of attempts by the Nakhchivan security services to get him collaborate with them or stop working as a journalist.

The opposition daily Azadlig’s main bank account has been blocked again since 16 April, after it was ordered to pay astronomic damages for supposedly libelling the Baku subway authority chief. Transport ministry inspectors attacked two Azadlig journalists, Seymour Khazyev and Khalig Garayev, while they were doing a report on 27 April.

Tolishi Sado editor Hilal Mammedov’s trial is continuing, while Avaz Zeynalli, the editor of the newspaper Khural, has appealed against a nine-year jail sentence. Both are still detained.

Growing pressure on Internet users

The authorities also clearly have their sights on Internet users. The blogger Reshad Hagigat Agaaddin’s family reported that he was arrested on 10 May on a trumped-up charge of possessing drugs.

Agaaddin often posted comments on Facebook calling for justice and freedom, criticizing the government’s anti-religion policies and mocking the president’s plans for a third term, suggesting that he “clearly wants to get into the Guinness Book of Records.” One of his blogs referred to the Aliyev regime as “devilish.”

Seven young members of the opposition movement N!DA (Shout) have been in detention since their arrests in March and April 2013 on unsubstantiated charges of possessing drugs or firearms. They are above all known for their activism on online social networks. Similarly, a youth activist with the Popular Front Party (AXCP), was arrested in March for drug possession following a series of critical posts on Facebook and other social media. He was known to participate regularly in public protests. All eight activists remain in pre-trial detention.

Three more young activists – Turgut Gambar, board member of N!DA, Abulfaz Gurbanly, Chairman of the Youth Committee of the Popular Front Party, and the activist, Ilkin Rustamzade. a member of the “Free Youth” organisation who was involved in organising the “end soldier deaths” protests held earlier this year through Facebook – were arrested on 30 April 2013 and sentenced to 10 days administrative detention for participation in a memorial rally for victims of a 2009 terrorist attack.

The blogger Nilufer Magerramova died in a fall from her balcony in the northern city of Mingachevir on 7 May 2013. Her friends said the police had been harassing her during the preceding weeks, but this was denied by the prosecutor’s office, which said her death was suicide.

Azerbaijan was ranked 156th out of 179 countries in the press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders published in January. The situation has worsened steadily since then.

The undersigned organisations call on the Azerbaijani authorities to:

• Respect and promote the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, including online;
• Honour their commitment to decriminalise insult and defamation;
• Abolish administrative detention as a penalty for organising or holding an unauthorised assembly;
• Stop using bogus criminal or administrative penalties to punish the expression of dissent;
• Cease the practice of harassing media workers and bloggers;
• Immediately and unconditionally release Hilal Mammedov, Avaz Zeynalli, Zaur Gurbanli, and all other journalists, bloggers and activists currently detained or imprisoned in connection with exercising their right to free expression.

Signed by:

• Index on Censorship

• ARTICLE 19
• Civil Rights Defenders
• Freedom House
• International Media Support
• Media Diversity Institute
• Norwegian Helsinki Committee
• PEN International
• Reporters Without Borders

The post Azerbaijan: New legislative amendments further erode rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Russian opposition supporters gathered on 6 May to protest against Vladimir Putin and demanded the release of political prisoners. Photo: Elena Ignatyeva / Demotix

An organisation behind a nature reserve dedicated to the protection of Russia’s cranes has been ordered to register as “a foreign agent” under the country’s non-governmental organisation law. The case highlights how arbitrary implementation is chilling free expression in the country, Andrei Aliaksandrau reports.

The law was enacted by Russia’s Duma and signed by President Vladimir Putin in July 2012.  It requires NGOs receiving international funding to register with the government as a “foreign agent” and include that phrase in material they produce. The law also subjects registered NGOs to undergo financial audits and file twice-yearly reports on activities. Failure to comply leaves NGOs and staffers open to fines and possible prison time. The Putin government maintains that the law is intended to reduce external meddling in Russian politics, but opposition activists say that it is being used to suppress dissent.

The Muraviovka Park for Sustainable Nature Management — a non-profit studying the seven species of Russian cranes — was notified that it had to register under the law since it has received funding from outside Russia as part of several international environmental projects.  But Russian ecologists were surprised to learn the park is “a foreign agent” as politics has never been on their agenda.

This isn’t the first time cranes have become part of a political drama. In September 2012, Putin took to the air in a motorised hang glider to lead Siberian cranes on migration. But the current ruffling of feathers exposes the broad and vague definitions — like “political activity” — embedded in the foreign-agent law that allow arbitrary implementation.

Some take the warnings issued to Muraviovka Park and at least 39 other Russian NGOs as a sign that Russian authorities are continuing to wage a war against civil society.

The list of NGOs affected includes human rights groups, environmental organisations — and even an association of assisting cystic fibrosis patients. Many of the warnings stem from provisions in the organisations’ charters that suggest the NGO can represent their members at state bodies. These clauses are being interpreted as involvement in political activities by the government.

Cases have been already compiled against five NGOs. One of them, Golos (“Voice” or “Vote”), was found guilty of non-compliance with the law. The court decided it is a “foreign agent”, but failed to register itself as one. Golos was fined 300,000 roubles (about £6,250) and its leader Liliya Shibanova was fined 100,000 roubles (about £2,100).

The organisation denies the charges. It says staffers are not involved in political activity and  it has not received foreign funding. Golos was awarded the Andrei Sakharov Freedom Prize by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, but returned the prize money. The association said it is going to appeal the court’s decision.

The foreign agents law is just one example of Russian legislative acts labelled as repressive by critics and free expression activists since Putin returned to the presidency. Laws have been enacted that create black lists of web sites dangerous to children, ban “propaganda of homosexuality”, recriminalise libel and restrict freedom of assembly.

Index and other observers note that the repressive legal framework seems to be the Putin regime’s response to growing voices of dissent to his autocratic rule. But civic activists have also faced physical violence as authorities in different regions act with impunity — taking their cue from Moscow’s increasing restrictions on free expression.

On 29 April police and private guards used force while dispersing local people protesting plans to build a power station in the town of Kudepsta, near Sochi, the site of the 2014 Winter Olympics. On 13 May officers of Patrol, a private security firm, severely beat members of a group protesting an allegedly illegal nickel mine near the city of Voronezh. One of the protesters was beaten unconscious and two more had their sculls broken. Police were present and did not intervene, according to activists.

Civil society in Russia is facing hard times — and expresses little optimism about the future.

“By about the end of the autumn there won’t remain a single independent NGO left in our country,” is a sad prediction made by Elena Panfilova, the head of Centre Transparency International – Russia, on her Facebook account. “In this NGOs issue, in the end there is a choice for everyone to make: either to close down one’s own organisation or to be prosecuted and face up to two years in prison. There are no other variants. Not for anyone. I think that not everyone understands this, but this is the bottom line.”

No word on what the cranes plan to do to comply with the law. Perhaps Putin can take to the air to show them the way to freedom.

The post Russian bird lovers targeted as ‘foreign agents’ appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The government claims the move will give it the ability to more effectively oversee the web, the AFP reported. The opposition argues the law will have a chilling effect on free expression and could be used to stifle dissent.

Index on Censorship has previously criticised attempts by governments to control the online activities of their citizens. In the latest development, Index has joined a coalition to strongly condemn a series of repressive legislative amendments that Azerbaijan’s National Assembly adopted Tuesday.

The existing penalties for criminal defamation and insult in the media have been extended to online content, including Azerbaijan’s social networks. The length of “administrative” detention – 15 days without referring to a court has increased to 90 days.

More Azerbaijan >>>
• Azerbaijan’s Facebook fight
• In Depth: The Truth About Azerbaijan (19 Sep, 2012)
• Complete Coverage

The post Azerbaijan extends libel law to web speech appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Across too many EU member states, press freedom is weak, faltering or in decline with little comment and less action from the EU’s leaders or the European Commission. And in neighbouring member states, including applicant countries like Turkey, the EU is failing to tackle substantive attacks on the media.

In Hungary, the independence from political interference of the country’s central bank, judicial system, media regulation and more has been called into question as its government drew up a new constitution and regulatory approaches. This is now so bad that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Europe’s human rights watchdog – quite separate from the EU) is proposing putting Hungary on its monitoring list. If it does, Hungary will joning Bulgaria as the two EU member states on this list of shame. Yet where are the EU’s leaders? More concerned on the whole with whether Hungary’s central bank is genuinely independent than whether a core element of political and economic accountability, a free media, is under attack.

A similar picture can be seen in Greece. As the ferocity of the economic crisis, and the measures imposed by the EU’s Troika, tear at the fabric of Greek society, media freedom is deteriorating – from a position that was already weak by EU standards. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis, winner of this year’s Index Press Freedom Award, was prosecuted in 2012 for publishing the so-called Lagarde list of Greeks who have Swiss bank accounts, and may be evading tax as a result. Having won his case, Greek prosecutors rapidly announced a retrial, due this June – which if he loses will see Vaxevanis jailed. This case is ignored in Brussels. When Index and its international partners wrote to Commission president Barroso, he delegated the reply to a junior official who wrote in a letter to Index this January that the case had been positively resolved but the Commission would keep a careful watching brief. This dismissive ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Meanwhile, across the EU’s border, Turkey’s government is attacking media freedom with ever more brazen impunity, something Index recognised by putting Turkey’s imprisoned journalists on its press freedom Award shortlist this year.Turkey now stands ahead of China and Iran in the number of journalists it has jailed, while other journalists week by week lose their columns, their jobs, are censored by editors or owners or have learnt to self-censor. The EU is in – slow and lengthy – membership negotiations with Turkey. Any such candidate state is meant to meet basic standards of democracy including a free and fair press before talks start. So where is the EU and why has it not suspended talks until Turkey stops attacking the cornerstone of its democracy – the media?

Going North to the UK, there is chaotic disarray as British politicians attempt to establish a new system of press regulation in response to the phone-hacking scandal. The cross-party consensus on the proposed new regulator oversteps a crucial press freedom red line, with MPs voting on detailed characteristics of a new regulatory system. The bulk of the press has rejected this new approach – one that would impose exemplary damages for those not joining its ‘voluntary’ regulator – something the European Court of Human Rights will doubtless be called to judge on if the new regulator goes ahead. The Telegraph, Daily Mail, News International and others have proposed a different form of ‘independent’ regulator – one that gives them a veto on core appointments, an industry own-goal where genuine backing for a truly independent regulator would have given them the moral highground. It’s a shambolic mess – parliament showing itself careless on press freedom, and the UK apparently incapable of designing a tough, new regulator that is genuinely independent both of politicians and the press.

Where is the EU in all this? Mostly still ever-focused on the euro crisis. Senior EU leaders are starting to worry about the vertiginous loss of political trust in the EU across most member states, but showing little concern for a key element of European political systems, a free press. European Commission Vice-President Nellie Kroes did establish a High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. But while its report had some welcome recommendations, the Group, rather anachronistically failed to begin to address and embrace the freedoms of the digital age where we are potentially all reporters and publishers.

On this World Press Freedom Day, it is time that the EU remembers its roots in democracy and freedom of expression and starts to hold its members – and candidate countries – seriously to account wherever press freedom is under attack.

Tunisia: Press faces repressive laws, uncertain future
Egypt: Post-revolution media vibrant but partisan
Brazil: Press confronts old foes and new violence

Photos: Shutterstock

The post World Press Freedom Day: Is the European Union faltering on media freedom? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Kostas Vaxevanis gives his speech after winning Index on Censorship’s 2013 Journalism Award

In 2006, Mr Vgenopoulos bought a percentage of the Laiki Bank in Cyprus, through the Marfin Investment Group (MIG). Since then, the bank has been used to grant loans to businesses and individuals so that they may increase their share capital in MIG. Within Greece, MIG seemed like a giant, at the leading edge of the financial miracle. Despite occasional reports, the Governor of the Central Bank of Greece assured everyone that this was all legal.

At the end, the Laiki Bank collapsed and dragged Cyprus down with it. My magazine published the entire history of the theft of capital involved, utilising official documents including one report on the control mechanism of the Bank of Greece, which in 2009 mentioned the dangers implicit in the loaning process.

Andreas Vgenopoulos, instead of replying to these public accusations and disclosures, filed an official complaint. Apparently everyone has the right to choose legal measures to defend themselves, if they are offended. But here we have a Greek phenomenon. Politicians, businessmen, public figures regarding whom scandalous things are revealed through investigative journalism, instead of replying publicly, as they should, file complaints and lawsuits.

So the public, instead of getting answers, hears only about a slew of complaints and lawsuits filed in order to construct the image of an “offended and slandered victim”. Political and business elites have created an industry of lawsuits and intimidation, instead of apologising.

When, after many years, the cases go to trial, the harassed journalist, who has suffered great financial cost, has to continue to do his job. Needless to say, these legal measures are used against independent journalists and are usually accompanied by various anonymous reports in anonymous blogs which wonder whether the journalist is being paid off. Thus, the intimidation and the “hostage taking” of journalists replace any requirement for public figures to be accountable.

In our own defence

And what do the journalists do to defend themselves? That is a long story. In 1989, private television was introduced in Greece. This seemed to be the voice of freedom measured against a “public” television controlled by the government. Soon it became clear that this was not the case. The businessmen who invested in these new media used them as a means of pressuring successive governments in order to close various lucrative government deals. The former prime minister, Kostas Karamanlis, called them “a group of pimps” before finally succumbing to them.

Alongside the press interest groups, companies for audience monitoring and media retailers were established, all getting a slice of the revenue and advertising pie. Very soon an interwoven system was created. Journalists should have stood out against this system. Unfortunately they stood beside it. Today in Greece, where not even a grocery store can operate without a license, a law has been passed that allows TV channels to operate without a permanent license.

The policy of the banks added to this mess. They loaned to publishers, creating another hostage-taking relationship. Recently a Greek channel (one of many that exist, and it’s a wonder how they survive financially), ALTER, closed leaving debts and loans of over 500 million euros. This means that a company whose market value was only a few million received loans of one hundred times that amount.

There is a corrupt core operating in Greece. It consists of businessmen doing whatever they like, even breaking the law, of politicians that secure government deals with them and legitimise them by passing laws, and of journalists who don’t say a word.

When last October, Hot Doc published the Lagarde list of Greek depositors in Switzerland who had never been audited, the Public Prosecutor’s Office instead chose to charge me, without the official complaint of a single citizen. They arrested me at a friend’s house on the grounds of a personal data breach. Since then, five newspapers have published lists of tax evaders or others who are being legally audited, but the Public Prosecutor did not bring any charges. I was violently brought to trial and acquitted. And then the Public Prosecutor again did something unprecedented. They had the verdict cancelled and ordered that I should go on trial again on June 6. Apparently they didn’t like the fact that I was initially acquitted.

None of the Greek mass media (whose owners were on the Lagarde list) said anything about this whole affair. My arrest, my trial and my silencing were a huge point of discussion in the foreign press, but not in the Greek ones. Of course this was not the only case. When a few months ago Reuters, after a big inquiry, disclosed the substantial scandals of a Greek bank, again no comment from the Greek media. On the contrary, they published the bank’s denial. It was ridiculous and at the same time tragic to see a hollow denial for something that had never been published in the first place.

The same bank became the subject of a Hot Doc investigative report. On the same day, a fake story appeared in an anonymous blog that presented me as an employee of the Secret Services. A few months later, five people ambushed me in the garden of my house, waiting for me to come home. I called the police, but they diminished the charges to “attempted burglary”. Again the mainstream media has mentioned nothing about the incident, although it concerned a journalist and a well-known citizen.

Closing ranks

Greece lives in the grip of a peculiar state within the state. The role of journalism is trimmed and those who defend it are being targeted. Silence and concealment is one issue. The second is that an effort is being made to criminalise the investigation of the truth in opposition to the public’s right to transparent and accountable journalism. In essence, the basic journalistic functions of public scrutiny have been neutralised.

I will mention one other example from Hot Doc. Recently we discovered that Ilias Philippakopoulos, the director of New Democracy, the leading party in the government, had been an enthusiastic supporter of the Greek Junta. We published letters which he had written praising the military dictatorship which ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974. The Prime Minister and his party had the obligation to prosecute this antidemocratic member of their executive. Not only did they not, but they didn’t even answer our request for an official public statement.

Greece lives under a hybrid democracy. Sure, the citizens can vote every four years, but then democracy becomes a process of manipulation by politicians, much of it deeply corrupted by vested interests. In the last three years alone, over 30 laws have been passed which favour the interests of businessmen. The citizens never learn about this, so they cannot form an opinion, nor react to it. The Greek press, being in a chronic financial state, is funded by banks’ promotions, loans and state organisations that give out their favours selectively.

Since 2010, Lavrentis Lavrentiadis, the owner of Proton Bank, who has now been detained for the embezzlement of 800 million euros, bought 10-20 per cent of almost all the media in Greece: thereby securing their silence for whatever scandalous thing he did. Independent journalism is up against a system that knows that it is in mortal danger from disclosure and will do anything it needs to survive. It funds publishers, it is engaging journalists in money laundering, and in return employs them in “press offices”. A network of bribery has always existed, but now a culture of silence has spread everywhere.

When we launched the publication of Hot Doc exactly one year ago, we chose the motto “the truth as it is, the journalism as it should be”. That is exactly what we believe. We have to reinvent journalism and to reassign it its rightful role as an authority alongside the other authorities. Alongside society.

Kostas Vaxevanis is a Greek investigative journalist and Index on Censorship Award-winner.

The post Corruption, fear and silence: the state of Greek media today appeared first on Index on Censorship.

On 12 March, Avaz Zeynalli, editor of independent newspaper Hural, was sentenced to nine years in prison for alleged bribery. The journalist pleaded not guilty, and has claimed that the charges brought against him were connected to his work. According to the Baku-based Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, six more journalists critical of the ruling regime have faced false charges — ranging from possession of drugs to high treason.

Impunity is still a problem: those responsible for the murders of journalists Elmar Huseynov (2005) and Rafiq Tagi (2011) have yet to be found or tried. Well-known Azerbaijani journalist Chingiz Sultansoy told Index:

Impunity has affected the work of all journalists in Azerbaijan for years. The recent cases show that people who attack reporters feel permissiveness and have no fear of punishment for violence. It was the case with brutal attacks on Hadiza Ismail, one of the best investigative journalists in Azerbaijan, or Rashad Zustamov, a reporter for Zerkalo newspaper, who conducted his investigations in the provinces.

Azerbaijani journalist Elmar Huseynov was murdered in 2005

The independent press has faced economic discrimination, as authorities regularly pressure advertisers not to sell ads in these papers; critical newspapers are kept away from press distribution networks, which are controlled by state officials.

“The further pressure aims to completely stifle the free press and restrict media freedom in the country. The regime has not been able to completely destroy the independent media, only because of several courageous media outlets and reporters who continue their work selflessly,” Ganimat Zahid, the editor-in-chief of Azadliq (“Freedom”) newspaper, says.

“Ministers continue filing suits against the press and claim huge compensations and fines in libel cases in order to bankrupt newspapers. As the authorities are aware their real electoral support is low, they try to tighten the screws and restrict people’s rights and freedoms, especially freedom of expression,” Natig Dzhafarli, an executive secretary of REAL movement, says.

Television remains an important source of information for the population of the country. Most of the nine national TV channels are either directly owned by the state or controlled by the authorities. Audiences are inundated with state propaganda, even through channels that offer no direct coverage of current events or political news. For instance, commentators on a state sports channel often forget to comment on a sports event they broadcast — and instead praise President Ilham Aliyev for “the great attention” he pays to development of sports in the country.

“There is no independent television in Azerbaijan. Even the Public TV that is supposed to be a public service broadcaster serves the government. The only alternative TV is ‘Azerbaijani Time’, broadcast from Turkey,” says Shahvalad Chobanoglu, a journalist and critic of the government.

While the authorities keep almost total control over the traditional media, social networks have become an important platform for free expression. Facebook is one of the most popular sites used. According to blogger Ali Novruzov, social media will play a significant role during the election campaign, as IT remains the only free channels of information in Azerbaijan — and it certainly keeps the regime wary.

Several activists have been arrested for their protest activities on social networks. In public statements, high-ranking officials aggressively attack social media, calling it a “harmful phenomenon”. Fazail Agamaly, an Azerbaijani MP, publicly called for access to social networking websites in Azerbaijan to be blocked during a speech in Milli Majlis, the country’s parliament.

According to Turgut Gambar from the Nida Civic Movement, there has been a “wave of unprecedented attacks” against recent pro-democracy protests organised by Azerbaijani youth. On 3 April, Nida reported that seven of its members are currently imprisoned and are being held in prison for three months in pre-trial custody. They include activists Shahin Novruzlu, Mammad Azizov and Bakhtiyar Guliyev, arrested on 7 March for alleged possession of drugs and molotov cocktails; NIDA board members Mammad Azizov, Rashad Hasanov Rashadat Akhundov and Uzeyir Mammadli, arrested on 7 March, 14 March and 30 March; and blogger and activist Zaur Gurbanli, arrested on 1 April.

The war declared by the regime on social media became more serious after street protests — organised by young people through Facebook — on 10 March .

Hundreds of protesters gathered in Azerbaijan’s capital on 10 March

On the same day, Eynulla Fatullayev, the editor of haqqın.az website and a former political prisoner, published an investigation accusing the head of a local branch of National Democratic Institute (NDI), Alex Grigorievs, of sponsoring $2 million to the “Facebook revolution”, as the event has already been dubbed. Grigorievs has denied this, and Fatullayev’s colleagues have accused him of “turning pro-government”.

Azerbaijani authorities took the report seriously: not only was this reflected in the number of activists detained, but also in its decision to support those using social networks to show their allegiance to the government. On 16 March, president Ilham Aliyev allocated 5 million Azerbaijani manats (about £4.2 million) to fund activities of pro-governmental youth organisations in social networks.

But the blogger Ali Novruzov believes the authorities will not be able to coerce opinion on social media:

The government does not control the internet and is not really able to; this is why they are afraid of new technologies and are paranoid about ‘Facebook revolutions’ and alleged millions spent on mobilising the youth in social networks. The regime understands that with one million Azerbaijanis being on Facebook and able to impart and receive uncensored information, it will be difficult to implement their election scenario.

Idrak Abbasov is a journalist from Azerbaijan and a 2012 Index Award winner

The post Azerbaijan’s Facebook fight appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Today, headlines from around the world resonate with the news that there are nearly six million Spanish citizens currently unemployed. Spaniards are in the process of losing their quality of life, along with their access to health, education and even food. The number of homeless people is rising and cutbacks and “reforms” continue without respite.

How is it possible for the country to accept that over half its population of under 25-year-olds are unemployed? How does a society sustain itself with over a million members living in households where not so much as a euro comes in by way of a monthly salary? How sick is a society when the only social group not to lose its purchasing power in recent years are the retired and when there are more than 150 home evictions per day? What is the impact of such a profound crisis on freedom of expression?

As could have been foreseen, street protests have only increased in size and intensity since the start of the crisis in 2008. And authorities have responded in equal measure.

Evictions are one of the most dramatic consequences of the economic and financial crisis — there are more than 150 home evictions per day in Spain. Jose Luis Cuesta / Demotix

The turning point was 15 May 2011, when — summoned by organisations such as Juventud sin future (Youth without a future), Democracia real YA! (Real democracy NOW!) and about 200 smaller citizen platforms — thousands of protesters occupied plazas and streets in 58 cities, starting with Puerta del Sol in Madrid. They claimed they weren’t being represented by traditional politics; they demanded a radical change in society. Immediately, the media linked the protests to the Icelandic rallies of 2009, to the 2011 revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and to the movement set out in the best-selling book Indignez-vous! by Stéphane Hessel, a French Resistance hero, concentration camp survivor and co-author of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Indignez-vous! (Time for Outrage!) rails against apathy and argues that anger and indignation can be a powerful motive for change. The protesters became known as the Indignados movement, or 15M, and became a global symbol.

A survey published by RTVE (Spanish public TV) reported on 6 August 2011 that, since 15 May 2011, between 6 and 8.5 million citizens had participated in the 15M movement, visited the campsites where protesters gathered, joined assemblies or took part in the demonstrations organised by Democracia real YA!

On assuming office in December 2011, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy unleashed a seemingly unstoppable agenda of cuts intended to slim down Spain’s welfare state. It had to be defended. The protection of and provision for society had been secure for decades, but now it was regarded by Rajoy’s party as a luxury, and by the opposition as a key political victory that had to be won. For grassroots activists, it provoked an even stronger reaction, led by 15M.

As one reform followed another in waves, the 15M movement discovered who its allies were: state employees and civil servants who now perceived public services — basic health, education, assistance to immigrants and disabled people in vulnerable situations — to be at great risk, along with their own jobs. Civil servants became a target for conservative media. They were slow,they were “lazy”, they were “privileged”, they abused the system. A type of Orwellian Newspeak was being born. Spain has over three million state employees and the tales spun by the media talked endlessly of an over-abundance of public sector workers, in spite of the fact that, according to the International Labour Organisation, the percentage of public sector employees, compared to the overall workforce, is lower than that of some 15 other European countries.

An “indignado” struggles to escape from a policemen during riots in Barcelona’s main square (Plaça Catalunya) during ‘Movimiento 15M’ — The occupy movement in Spain. Juanfra Alvarez / Demotix

Seeing that the regenerated social movements, along with trade unions and public sector employees, were uniting against government policies, it was virtually guaranteed that the streets would be permanently filled with protesters. “Labour reforms are going be at the cost of a [general] strike,” Rajoy practically bragged in January 2012, unaware that the television cameras were on him as he had an informal chat with his Finnish counterpart, Jyrki Katainen, on the fringes of a Council of the European Union meeting. Rajoy’s government has lived through two brutal general strikes that have affected the entire country and thousands of demonstrations. In Madrid alone, at least ten demonstrations are recorded daily.

Doctors, underground train and bus drivers, journalists, judges, district attorneys, lawyers, teachers, firefighters … every day a demonstration, almost never assembled by a trade union, but which can regularly count on the support of other movements, always connected through online social networks.

Police brutality

To every action there is always equal reaction on the opposite side. Excessive behaviour on the part of the police is hardly new, even at the least officially organised smaller demonstrations taking place in Spain. In their annual review of human rights across the world, Amnesty International has been recording police abuses of power in the country for some time. But in the course of the last two years, both political discourse and police heavy-handedness have increased to such an extent that public protest has been virtually criminalised.

In previous times, police only charged the crowds after dark, once the number of protesters had diminished and only those considered to be the most radical stayed behind. But recent months have seen police charge into town squares filled with families protesting peacefully.

The 15M movement emerged in a relatively peaceful environment. The first reports of major brutality by police were during a march to support miners from northern Spain in June 2012. On 11 July, a small group of troublemakers set off fireworks (an act that on earlier occasions would have raised tensions but not led to anything more disruptive), resulting in the deployment of hundreds of police, who, moving at full speed, shoved, hit and used truncheons against anyone in their way, many of whom sought refuge in the shops and bars that were still open. Seventy-six people were injured and seven were arrested.

Similar episodes took place outside the Congress building in September 2012, when the slightest provocation resulted in a massive police charge, with officers lashing out indiscriminately, firing off rubber bullets and pursuing individuals even inside train and underground stations, whether or not they had participated in the demonstrations. The media reported that 64 people were injured and that 35 had been arrested. Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz declared the police had acted ‘magnificently’ and that ‘some demonstrators’ had used ‘excessive violence’.

Such an excess of police zeal gives rise to intermittently absurd situations. Feli Velasquez was stopped in the doorway of her own court hearing. She had been brought before the judge for having joined in one of the daily protests against the fact that, on average, 517 people are made homeless every day in Spain. As she entered the courthouse, a small group of people gathered in the doorway to support Feli and her colleagues. She was detained for participating in a gathering “without official approval”.

Repression has not always been physical: at times, it has taken the form of a political or economic deterrent, criminalising the act of protest. Members of local government in Madrid have indulged in phrases such as “extreme right-wing”, “extreme left-wing”, “illegal demonstration” or “coup d’etat”, soundbites that the press are often reluctant to question. This is clearly a strategy to typecast those who call for demonstrations as always violent, and one that seeks to damage the movement’s immense success in and reputation for attracting the support of people from all backgrounds. Prime Minister Rajoy has often praised those “normal ‘ people who “remain at home”.

Once the demonstration has taken place, the strategy of dissuasion goes on: in December more than 300 individuals received a fine of €500 euros (US$656) for nothing more than having attended a protest on 27 October against the 2013 budget. According to information published by Spanish state news agency EFE, they constituted 10 per cent of the participants. The legal pretext was that the authorities had not been notified in advance of the gathering, a ruling that could have been applied exclusively to the organisers and not to the protesters as a whole.

A demonstration through the streets of Madrid in Spain Square to Puerta del Sol to protest against the European financial markets. Alejandro Martínez Vélez / Demotix

As journalists, we have taken to wearing high visibility identity jackets and helmets. We’ve not quite reached the stage of wearing gas masks, as now happens in Greece. Yet. However, there have never been so many cameras, both professional and amateur, photographing everything — every police action, or reaction on the part of the protesters. Despite all this, and despite being clearly visible, there is no lack of examples of journalists being beaten, wounded or detained over the course of the past two years.

It has often been impossible to find out who is responsible for the brutality: the law states that police officers must identify themselves, displaying relevant information on their lapels. But riot police have on several occasions removed insignias from their uniforms or else covered them up with other articles of clothing as soon as they come into direct contact with demonstrators. The outrage on behalf of both the public and the media regarding the concealment of police identification numbers has evoked no political response whatsoever.

Has public protest become a crime?

In practice, the opposite has occurred: the Director General of Police, Ignacio Cosidó, let slip during a session of parliament that the Ministry of the Interior was looking into prohibiting the recording of police actions that could then be shown over the internet. It was a way of seeing how the idea was received and intended to cause alarm rather than lead to actual implementation. Still, even mention of it demonstrated a clear threat to press freedom in Spain.

Former minister of the interior and current president of the Grupo Popular (the governing Popular Party)in the European Parliament Mayor Jaime Oreja endorsed it on numerous occasions, commenting that it was “crazy that it was possible to view all these problems of public order on television because it only incited people to demonstrate all the more”. Although Cosidó moderated his remarks later on, dozens of journalists and commentators reacted to the director general’s statement with anger and vociferous debate.

The new penal code, to be introduced later in 2013, is more than just a threat. It will make passive, peaceful resistance — for example, chaining yourself to a door so you cannot be forcibly removed, or throwing yourself to the floor while being forcibly evicted from your home —  into a serious crime against the authorities, equivalent to the public disorder of violence on the street. There has even been discussion about a clause permitting legal action against those who use the internet to encourage people to attend demonstrations that could potentially result in violence.

The endless ways to discredit, harass and criminalise citizen protest has direct opposition online. Social networks have become dramatically re-politicised since 15 May 2011. It was then that the seeds of indignation were sewn. They have developed into a vigilant citizen lobby, a furious but peaceful movement informed by a sense of outrage and distrust of power. Social movements give validity to the rearguard, to the intellectual construction of a model that resists both attacks and criminalisation. The network has confidence in itself as an underground labyrinth, well adapted to slip loose from the reins of power.

Further cutbacks are predicted, along with further economic adjustments, and more austerity, in the course of this year. No doubt they will come accompanied by further demonstrations.

Juan Luis Sánchez is a Spanish journalist and deputy editor of eldiario.es. He tweets from @juanlusanchez

This article appears in Fallout: free speech and the economic crisis. Click here for subscription options and more.

The post Spain: The formidable voices of the plazas appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This grim reading is made worse when one looks at the facts. According to official statistics, women in Belarus have higher levels of education (49 per cent of Belarusian females graduated from universities — in comparison to 42 per cent of men) and are better at foreign languages (59 per cent of Belarusians who speak English are women, whilst 63 per cent of German-speaking Belarusians are female). At the same time, men are much better represented at top managerial positions.

Alexander Lukashenko is often seen in public with his son, but Nikolay’s mother or the President’s own wife never make an appearance

According to Iryna Sidorskaya, Head of the journalism institute’s department of communication technologies at Institute at the Belarusian State University, men don’t like losing to women; men are afraid of looking weak against strong and intelligent women.

“Men are unlikely to hear out women. There is a strong stereotype in our society about women being talkative and just capable of blabbing; and talking is not ‘real work’, but just a waste of time. One can notice during any working meeting in a company or an organisation that men often don’t listen to women talking; even if the latter make the right point, the former perceive their interventions as ‘too much talking’,” says Sidorskaya.

Such attitudes are present in many fields of activity; thus it works as a “natural” acceptance of a restriction of women’s freedom of expression on many levels.

“Women are just not regarded as equal to men, even if they have the same job positions; they are regarded to be inferior to male colleagues. One can see the same trend in business as well as in politics,” Sidorskaya admits.

No change without gender education

Belarus has gender-neutral laws; there are no designated state programmes or strategies aimed at enhancing women’s participation in decision making processes at any levels.

“Women in Belarus face discrimination; not only do they have less access to high managerial levels of decision-making, their freedom of expression is restricted in comparison with men,” says Elena Eskova, former leader of the Belarusian Women’s party Nadzeya (Hope), which was liquidated by the authorities in 2007.

According to Eskova, the issue goes back to the leader of the country itself. Authoritarian politicians and diffident managers tend to surround themselves with dull people in order to stand out against their “grey” background:

“The Belarusian president does not like talented and bright people with striking personalities, especially women. That is exactly why there are almost no women in government or other bodies of power, as they just don’t fit into his authoritarian and masculine style of management. There are 29 female MPs (out of total of 110 in the lower chamber of the national parliament), but none of them are really influential or well-known,” says Eskova.

The role of women is underestimated — and not just by the authorities; women are misrepresented among the opposition leaders, too. It can be explained by long-lasting patriarchal history that suggested men are in charge. Nothing is going to change unless gender education is introduced starting from entry school level.

Borscht vs politics

The hallmark of an “official” attitude to women’s participation in political life was a comment by Lidziya Yarmoshyna, the Chair of the Central Election Commission, made on 20 December 2010, after a brutal dispersal of protests against fraudulent presidential elections. During a press conference she replied to a remark from a journalist about police using force against peaceful demonstrators, including women:

“You know, such ‘women’ have nothing else to do. They’d better stay home and cook borscht instead of hanging around at squares… It is a shame for a woman to participate in such actions… If a grown woman joins protests, it just shows there is something wrong with her intellect.”

People who have access to the top governmental bodies in Belarus say there are just two official receptions or celebrations where officials are invited together with their wives; those for New Year’s Eve, and for Defender of the Fatherland Day on 23 February, which is essentially “Men’s Day”.

Other parties and receptions exclude wives from celebrations. Lukashenko himself has never been seen in public with his wife. He tries to position himself as a strong politician, who is a good father for both his nation (often being referred to as “batska”, which means “a father” in Belarusian) — and his youngest son Nikolay.

“The fact that he takes his younger son everywhere with him, but has never been accompanied by the boy’s mother or any other ‘first lady’ rouses the indignation of every woman I know, regardless of their political views. It appears that the president’s women are the most discriminated in the whole country. Halina Lukashenko, the president’s wife, in fact lives under house arrest; and Nikolay’s mother has never even been named at all (she most likely to be Iryna Abelskaya, Lukashenko’s former doctor). What kind of a country do we live in, if we don’t have a first lady, but have a president with a child?” Elena Eskova asks.

Is there a new trend?

The attitude towards women may partly come from the leader of the country, but it is also well-built in the culture of the society.

“This statement can be proved by the results of our opinion polls,” says Dr. Aleh Manaeu, Head of the Independent Institute of Social, Political and Economic Studies (IISEPS).

According to IISEPS, 45.5 per cent of Belarusians consider men to be better political leaders than women; 44.6 per cent think they are equal, and only about 8 per cent of the country say women can lead in politics better than men do.

Sixty per cent of Belarusians also believe men have more possibilities in politics, business and other areas of activities.

“It goes back to our history and culture. And still, we can see some positive dynamics in these responses in comparison to what we used to have 15 or 20 years ago, when the public opinion was even more ‘masculine-centred’,” Dr. Manaev says.

Interestingly, women occupy more and more senior roles in independent media. The question is whether the rest of the Belarusian society will follow this trend.

Maryna Koktysh is an award-winning Belarusian journalist

The post Dictatorship: it’s a man’s game appeared first on Index on Censorship.