A group of 19 international organisations today called for the release of Zaitani, Gharir, and Darwish, and for the charges against all five to be dropped. If convicted, they face up to 15 years in prison. According to a statement released today, Syria’s Justice Minister earlier this month promised the release of SCM’s three jailed members — in addition to 69 other jailed activists.

SCM member Maha Assabalani, who was avoided being imprisoned during the raid, wrote about her colleagues for Index last year. She said that her colleagues are in prison for fighting for freedom of expression — and that they “risked their life fighting for real change.”  She also said that Darwish regularly told the organisation’s staff that “there are not enough prisons for the free word.”

The post Syrian free speech advocates facing terror charges appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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.

Atlético Paranaense from Curitiba, one of Brazil’s top flight teams and Brazilian champions in 2001, banned press conferences and independent media work during their weekly activities and on match days.

On top of that, no staff member — including players and managers — of Atlético is officially allowed to speak to the media. The club says that radio stations and newspapers should pay for the right to report on the club, along the lines of fees television stations pay to broadcast matches.

However, a 2011 federal law forbids football clubs from charging money for radio broadcasts.

The club’s policy is that all information about the team will be funneled through official channels ike the team’s website, online radio and TV. Independent journalists will be limited to background information and off-the-record statements.

It’s a common practice in Brazil’s football industry to have at least two press conferences a week with players and managers and regular media activity on match days. It’s also usual in the country to have people from clubs on sport shows airing on TV and radio, which makes Atlético’s move a rare one in Brazilian football.

“The content we offer is not of a primary importance to the audience, it’s pure entertainment. So we don’t feel obliged to let anyone enter the club’s premises and profit from our business without paying for it, like radio stations do”, says Mauro Holzmann, Atlético’s director of communications and marketing.

“Less than thirty years ago it was OK for televisions to broadcast football matches without paying for it, but now it’s unthinkable to do so. So why don’t the other media pay for it? We know it’s a paradigm shift, but maybe other clubs will do this too”, Holzmann told Index on Censorship.

Broadcasting of matches became another problematic issue. Atlético did not reach an agreement for Paraná’s State Championship with TV rights holders RPC  – a local affiliate of national media giant Rede Globo. Because of that, fans were not be able to watch the games unless they bought tickets and went to the pitch.

“This is a complete enclosure that ends up damaging everybody”, says Leonardo Bonasolli, reporter at Gazeta do Povo, Curitiba’s biggest newspaper.

“The club loses exposure at the media, and exposure means more sponsorship money. The press loses the chance of providing a different, independent point of view and, of course, fans also lose because they are not interested only on the team’s monolithic media work”, Bonasolli told Index on Censorship.

Atlético’s chairman Mário Celso Petraglia said the State Championship – which runs from January until early May – is not profitable, so he would not only deny TV broadcasting but would also put the Under-23 team on the pitch, while the main squad would have an extended pre-season in Europe until the start of the Brazilian Championship.

About the media ban, Petraglia said in a rare interview that the club “reached a limit” in its relationship with the press, and that journalists “should be neutral and conduct [their work] in an ethical and moral way”, something he believes does not happen in Paraná.

Petraglia’s disturbed relationship with the press has a long history – it started in the late 1990s, when he was involved in a bribery scheme with referees to fix match results. He was neither convicted nor banned because of the episode.

Atlético first tried to charge money from radios to broadcast its games in 2008. However, a judge ruled the fees were illegal and radio stations have since been given stadium access on match days.

Atlético’s media ban was effectively shut down in early May, during the State Championship finals against historic rivals Coritiba. Rede Globo, which also owns the TV rights of the Brazilian Championship, made a deal with Atlético to allow both matches to be aired. It also closed an agreement for broadcasting the State Championship in 2014 and 2015.

After the game, Atlético’s players gave interviews normally, even to outlets other than Globo, as if there was no ban.

Paraná’s Sports Journalists Association believes Atlético’s attitude towards general media won’t change much, even with the upcoming Brazilian Championship, which draws national attention to all clubs.

“When the Brazilian championship starts, Atlético will be forced to speak to Globo, and they will also feel pressed to hold conferences after matches, because there will be so many journalists from the whole country. But I doubt they will allow other radio or TV stations inside the club during the week, so Globo will do all interviews and share their material to the other outlets”, says the Association’s president, Isaías Bessa.

Local journalists also say the club’s lack of transparency damages Curitiba’s position as one of the host cities of the 2014 World Cup – Atlético’s stadium will a venue. Renovations on the stadium are said to be the most behind schedule of any of the 12 World Cup venues, but independent media was never allowed inside after the works began.

Atlético’s Mauro Holzmann firmly says the stadium will be ready by the end of 2013, like FIFA demands, and blames all delays on “Brazil’s bureaucracy” to deal with public financing.

The post Brazil loves football, but Atlético Paranaense doesn’t have the hots for the press appeared first on Index on Censorship.

CANADA
Canada: ‘Israeli apartheid’ censorship row puts Toronto Pride funding in jeopardy
Pride Toronto faces the loss of its annual cultural grant over indecision as to whether the phrase ‘Israeli apartheid’ should be banned from the event, in a row which Peter Tatchell has called “straightforward censorship”. (Pink News)

IRAN
An election that might save books in Iran
Once the Islamic republic’s biggest cultural event, the Tehran International Book Fair – now in its 26th year — has wilted under President Mahmood Ahmadinejad’s hardline government. Raha Zahedpour reports on the recession in Iran’s publishing industry. (Index on Censorship)

KUWAIT
Rights group blasts Kuwait proposed tough media law
Human Rights Watch said Thursday a proposed media law by Kuwait would increase state control and curtail the right to free speech, as authorities suspended a popular talk show programme on a pro-opposition television channel. (Ahram Online)

UNITED KINGDOM
Sally Bercow pleads innocence over Lord McAlpine Twitter storm
Speaker’s wife says she was merely sharing random thought over Newsnight show that wrongly linked peer to abuse scandal. (The Guardian)

UNITED STATES
Free expression must not be attacked
Enough already. The public has the right to advocate causes, and the media the right to report news, without government intrusion. (Shelbyville Times-Gazette)

No Sex Talk Allowed
In a joint letter to the University of Montana, (intended as “a blueprint” for campus administrators nationwide) the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Education’s Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) define sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” verbal or nonverbal, including “unwelcome sexual advances or acts of sexual assaults.” (The Atlantic

The post Free expression in the news 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.

Over the past eight years, writers and publishers have been caught in a web of forbidden topics, names, phrases and words. No one in the industry can anticipate what will and will not be allowed by Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Completed projects wait for months to be reviewed by state censors and most are returned with a long list of “required modifications.”

Even books that were approved for publication in the past are now banned for “promoting Western thought” or “being immoral”. Some titles were removed from display at the fair despite being offered for sale at bookstores elsewhere.

Moreover, the government moved to shut down independent publishing firms that produce books on sociology, literature, politics and history. Under an official order, publishers must be approved by the ministry to continue their activities. Through the accreditation process, the government succeeded in banning some long-term publishers.

While Iran’s internal threats to free expression have had their impact, international sanctions have also put the publishing industry under intense pressure. The economic sanctions aimed at curtailing the country’s nuclear program have caused a dramatic rise in the cost of imported paper. As a result, publishers have been forced to limit volumes or suspend publication altogether. Prices for books have risen as a result.

Like all Iranians, the publishing industry is sizing up candidates ahead of the 14 June presidential elections. It is hoped a moderate, ‘reformist’ government will be a change agent in the international arena to end the economic embargo. They are also hoping that the ministry’s heavy-handed censorship will be lightened to fire up the printing presses.

Raha Zahedpour is a journalist and researcher living in London. She writes under a pseudonym.

The post An election that might save books in Iran appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In the last week, Bahrain’s treatment of its citizens and their right to free expression has been repeatedly in the news. Sara Yasin reports on a spate of developments that raise questions about the Bahraini government’s commitment to free speech.

Blogger and activist Ali Abdulemam has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. Abdulemam’s two years in hiding began shortly after the start of Bahrain’s political unrest in February 2011. He was sentenced in absentia to fifteen years in prison on charges of attempting to overthrow the monarchy.

Abdulemam is the prominent founder of Bahrain Online, a site that created an online space to criticise and discuss the country’s regime in 1998. Initially, he wrote anonymously, but he began to write in his own name in 2001. Public dissent in Bahrain comes at a price: the blogger was first arrested in 2005 and then once more in 2010.

News of Abdulemam’s heroic escape did not amuse Bahrain’s government:

Ali Abdulemam was not tried in court for exercising his right to express his opinions. Rather, he was tried for inciting and encouraging continuous violent attacks against police officers. Abdulemam is the founder of Bahrain Online, a website that has repeatedly been used to incite hatred, including through the spreading of false and inflammatory rumors.

The statement goes on to say that the country “respects the right of its citizens to express their opinion”, but makes a distinction between expressing an opinion and “engaging in and encouraging violence.”

Back in 2010, Abdulemam was jailed, tortured, and accused of being a part of a “terrorist network.” The real threat he posed to the state, as fellow activist Ala’a Shehabi put it last year, was that “his forum offered dissidents a voice.”

So what does “incitement” look like in Bahrain? For documenting a protest on Twitter last December, Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) member Said Yousif, was jailed and charged with “spreading false news.” According to the country’s laws, “the dissemination of the false news must amount to incitement to violence.” As Human Rights Watch’s Middle East director, Sarah Lea Witson put it:

If Bahraini officials believe that an activist is inciting violence by tweeting a picture of an injured demonstrator, then it’s clear that all the human rights sessions they’ve attended have been wasted.

The jailed head of the organisation, Nabeel Rajab, is currently serving a two year sentence for organising “illegal protests.” BCHR released a statement today expressing concerns that Rajab has been transferred to solitary confinement. He has been unreachable since relaying to his wife an account of young political prisoners being tortured earlier this week. Rajab was requesting a visit from the International Committee of the Red Cross, to document the case.

Still, Bahrain insists that freedom of expression is something that it upholds — in fact, it has gone so far as prosecuting individuals for supposedly abusing it. Just yesterday, year-long sentences were handed to six Twitter users for making posts insulting Bahrain’s King Hamad. For hanging a Bahraini flag from his truck during protests in 2011, a man was handed a three-month jail sentence today.

Looks like it might be time for Bahrain to reevaluate how it understands freedom of expression.

More Coverage >>>

• British embassy in Bahrain gets World Press Freedom Day wrong
• In Depth: Bahrain

The post What free speech means to Bahrain appeared first on Index on Censorship.

AZERBAIJAN
Azerbaijan extends libel law to web speech
Index on Censorship and partner organizations have strongly condemned moves by Azerbaijan’s government on Tuesday to criminalise online slander and abuse in the run-up to the country’s October Presidential election. (Index on Censorship)

BAHRAIN
Bahrain blogger given asylum in UK
A Bahraini blogger and human rights activist said he had been granted asylum in Britain after being in hiding for two years. (Gulf News)

Bahrain court jails six for insulting king on Twitter
A Bahraini court jailed six people for a year on Wednesday for insulting King Hamad bin Issa al Khalifa in messages on the microblogging site Twitter, the official news agency said. (Reuters)

BRUNEI
Brunei: ‘Slow Internet is Almost Like Censorship’
Brunei internet users are complaining against the slow and unreliable internet connection in their country. (Global Voices)

CANADA
U.S. man’s “supportive” web chat with suicidal Canadian teen “free speech”: lawyer
An American man convicted in 2011 of posing as a young, depressed woman in an online “suicide chat room” and helping a Canadian teenager kill herself in 2008 has appealed the verdict to Minnesota’s top court, arguing this week that the free-speech provisions of the U.S. First Amendment should have protected his “supportive” conversations with the distraught Carleton University student. (Canada.com)

CHINA
As China’s social media takes off, Beijing’s censorship campaign heats up
A few well-regarded intellectuals known to be critical of the Communist Party have drawn millions of followers on China’s Twitter. (Christian Science Monitor)

Blog of Critic of Chinese Censorship Deleted
It will hardly come as a surprise to anyone to learn that a popular writer and well-known critic of China’s pervasive censorship system has run into trouble for his views. (Reason)

EGYPT
Bassem Youssef’s fight for free speech wins cheers at AMF
Egypt’s Bassem Youssef, the TV host called to court for poking fun at President Mursi, was applauded at this week’s Arab Media Forum (AMF) after making a rousing argument for free speech. (AlArabiya)

Egyptian artists declare war on sexual harassment
Since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak two years ago, artists have been active in breaking Egypt’s age-old taboos around sexual violence, especially since sexual harassment has been on the rise. In the period after the revolution, artists — including women — have covered the country’s walls with murals and slogans, using them to amplify calls for change. Melody Patry reports. (Index on Censorship)

IRELAND
Irish mobile phone shutdown may be allowed during G8
The Irish government will allow the mobile phone network to be shut down in border areas during the G8 summit. (BBC)

KUWAIT
Kuwait: Draft Law Threatens Free Speech, Says HRW
Kuwaiti authorities should amend a proposed new press law that would increase state control of the news media and further curtail the right to free speech. The draft should be revised to protect free speech, consistent with requirements under international law, not curtail it, Human Rights Watch said. (Eurasia Review)

LIBYA
Young Libyans Find Escape in ‘Secret’ Cinema
In the basement of a villa in central Tripoli, young Libyans seeking an escape from violence and disorder watch an American movie classic screened using a simple projector and laptop. (Reuters via Voice of America)

RUSSIA
Russian bird lovers targeted as ‘foreign agents’
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. (Index on Censorship)

UNITED KINGDOM
Letter: Free speech, extremism and a university’s duty
Institutions have a legal obligation to promote free speech, and that may involve allowing controversial, indeed sometimes offensive, opinions to be expressed. (The Times)

UNITED STATES
The DOJ’s Freedom of Speech Breach
The seizure of AP’s phone records is legal, but that doesn’t make it an acceptable course of action for the Justice Department to take. (The American Prospect)

Lawmakers accuse Obama administration of abusing free speech rights
U.S. lawmakers accused the Obama administration on Wednesday of trampling on free speech rights and evading questions about the Justice Department’s secret seizure of Associated Press telephone records. (Reuters via The Chicago Tribune)

IRS targeting not only chills speech, it attacks 1st Amendment freedoms
The news that an office of the Internal Revenue Service targeted for review a number of groups with names that included “patriot” or “tea party” is chilling enough to hear – but there’s more reason to be concerned from a First Amendment perspective. (TriCities.com)

The post Free expression in the news 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.