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.

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.

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.

The conflict over how Mexico City accepted $5 million dollars from Azerbaijan to build the statue, as well as a park, has been brewing since November. The agreement to build the statue was reached by the leftist government of the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica (PRD) after some of its representatives traveled to Azerbaijan in an all expenses paid junket the previous year.

It wasn’t until the statue was up that there were rumblings from other European ambassadors. Aliyev’s not so clean past was revealed in the local press, including the fact that he had probably engaged in pogroms against Armenian citizens.

Mexicans began to consider whether they should bring down the statue. Initially the Azerbaijan ambassador, Ilgar Mukhtárov, threatened to break off relations if the statue was removed. The Christmas holidays slowed down the conflict. But finally, in late January, the Azerbaijan embassy and city officials agreed to move the statue to another more suitable place in Mexico City — a storage area.

The post Mexico City topples statue of a former Azerbaijani dictator appeared first on Index on Censorship.

An Indian soldier stands alert in Srinagar, Kashmir during a curfew to curb protest over the hanging of Afzal Guru

A politician in Azerbaijan has offered a cash reward to any person who finds and cuts of the ear of an author who wrote a book about the conciliation of Azeris and Armenians, it was reported on 12 February. Akram Aylisli’s book Stone Dreams has stirred up controversy for referencing Azerbaijan’s violence against Armenians during riots preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The party of Hafiz Haciyev, the head of a pro-government political group in Azerbaijan have offered 10,000 manat (£8,000) for the ear of the writer, as part of a sustained hate campaign against Haciyev. He has been expelled from the Union of Writers, had his presidential pension revoked and his wife and son have lost their jobs. Protestors around the country have burned books and effigies of Haciyev. As Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliyev approaches re-election later this year, the sustained negativity projected onto Haciyev is said to be a facade to hide the government’s internal issues amidst growing unrest.

Following protests in Kashmir over the execution of a man convicted of terrorism on 9 February, Kashmir’s internet and news outlets have been suppressed, and the entire Kashmir valley subjected to a strict curfew. Television channels and mobile internet were suspended immediately after Afzal Guru was hanged on 9 February. Local newspapers were forced to cease reporting the following day without warning — and have yet to be published since. Only the government, using state run service provider Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, has access to the internet. Some residential districts of Srinagar reported to receive some TV news channels on 10 February, but privately-owned channels had to suspend news services at the request of the government. Afzal Guru’s execution in a New Delhi prison on 9 February prompted protests in three areas of India administered Kashmir, surrounding claims the men accused were given an unfair trial. Guru was sentenced to death for helping to plot a 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that left 14 people dead.

In Somalia, a journalist has been detained without charge for defending press freedom, after a woman who claimed she was raped and the journalist who interviewed her were imprisoned. Daud Abdi Daud remains in custody since 5 February, after he spoke out in a Mogadishu court against the one year jail sentence given to Abdiaziz Abdinuur and the alleged rape victim on 5 February. Daud Abdi said journalists should be able to interview who they wish, saying he would make attempts to interview the president’s wife, causing the police to arrest him. Daud Abdi was later transferred from police custody into Mogadishu Central Prison. On 6 February, the attorney general ordered his continued detention at the Police’s Central Investigation Department.

Carmarthenshire County Council’s decision to pursue a libel case using public funding has been criticised. The council’s chief executive Mark James appeared in London’s Royal Courts of Justice today (13 February) where he and blogger Jacqui Thompson are suing each other for defamation following a series of comments posted online. James’s costs were indemnified by the council after a controversial decision in 2008, allowing public money to be used to fund libel lawsuits. Carmarthenshire County Council is believed to be the only authority to allow this in the UK, and the Welsh Assembly has questioned its legality, after an order they made in 2006 forbade local authorities from offering indemnities in libel cases. Carmarthenshire County Council said they had relied upon section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, rather than the 2006 law. The case likely to cost a six or seven figure sum, according to reports.

The post Index Index – International free speech round up 13/02/13 appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Protesters posted photographs and videos of clashes between police and demonstrators and there were reports that tear gas had been used on crowds and that pepper spray had been used against detainees.

“I approached police at demo and asked them to join us! They were thinking for a while. Then Arrested me. Writing from police station,” tweeted Emin Milli on Saturday afternoon.

Up to 100 people were thought to be detained, though initial reports put the number of arrests at around 40.

The post Many arrested at Baku protest appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Both resolutions were connected with long-awaited reports by PACE rapporteurs, and both contained recommendations from the body to the Azerbaijani authorities to improve the human rights situation in the country. PACE’s split approach to the two resolutions was the result of a carefully crafted lobbying strategy by the Azerbaijani delegation, which supported the somewhat-critical first resolution and the monitoring report on Azerbaijan — using it to make the second resolution on the more sensitive issue of political prisoners look both biased and unnecessary.

International and Azerbaijani rights groups viewed the defeat of the political prisoner resolution as deeply disappointing — particularly to those unjustly behind bars in the country who had high hopes pinned to its passage – and as a failure by the Council of Europe to hold Azerbaijan accountable for its obligations as a member state. The vote also has dangerous implications for the future of member states’ cooperation with PACE rapporteurs, as the body turned a blind eye to the Azerbaijani authorities’ refusal to issue a visa to Christoph Straesser, PACE’s special rapporteur for political prisoners in Azerbaijan — a fact that was then used to undermine the report’s credibility.

As Human Rights House Foundation Executive Director Maria Dahle emphasised in a press conference following the vote, the fact that the resolution did not pass does not mean that there are not political prisoners in Azerbaijan. Although it is true — as pointed out by opponents during the debate on the resolution — that many of the alleged political prisoners included in the original report have since been released, there have been new cases in their wake, as outlined in the report’s addendum, which many of the speakers who took the floor during the debate seemed to have not read. The real problem is the lack of political will of the authorities to improve the freedom of expression situation in the country, allowing for continued persecution of those who express critical opinions.

Indeed, there are a number of cases of journalists, human rights defenders, and activists currently in prison or detention in connection with exercising their right to freedom of expression, including Ilham Amiraslanov, Vugar Gonagov, Zaur Guliyev, Hilal Mammadov, Faramaz Novruzoglu and Avaz Zeynalli. Dayanat Babayev, Ogtay Gulaliyev, and Mehman Huseynov also face jail-time if convicted of politically motivated charges of hooliganism.

In failing to support the political prisoner resolution, PACE failed to take a stand on human rights and freedom of expression in Azerbaijan at a pivotal moment for the country’s relations with the Council of Europe. But all is not lost. As pointed out by UK MP Christopher Chope during the debate on the resolution, Straesser’s work has already resulted in the release of many persons he identified as potential cases of political prisoners and it also ensured that the monitoring report contained language on political prisoners.

PACE should use all available mechanisms to hold Azerbaijan — and indeed all member states — accountable for their Council of Europe obligations. The monitoring report contains important recommendations on human rights and freedom of expression issues, such as ending prosecution of those who express critical opinions and effectively investigating all cases of attacks against journalists and bringing the perpetrators to justice – including the murders of Elmar Huseynov and Rafiq Tagi. Failure to follow up on these and other key recommendations will serve to further damage the Council of Europe’s already weakening image as a body that promotes and protects human rights.

Rebecca Vincent is a freelance human rights consultant and an expert on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan

Index on Censorship and Crow Hill Films invite you to a screening of Amazing Azerbaijan! followed by a discussion on Azerbaijan and human rights on 30 January.

The post Have Europe’s politicians failed Azerbaijan? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Azerbaijani authorities repeatedly deny the presence of any political prisoners in the country, which commands huge business interests around the world, including among several MPs from the United Kingdom, several of whom voted against the resolution.

Disappointment among those who campaign for free expression in Azerbaijan was palpable, with several NGO representatives referring to the vote — 79 in favour and 125 against — as a disgrace.

Among those being held on spurious charges are journalists Avaz Zeynalli, Hilal Mammadov and Vugar Gonagov.

The resolution was based on a report by Rapporteur Christoph Strasser, who was repeatedly denied entry into Azerbaijan to carry out his mandate. Several delegates refused to recognise the resolution on grounds that Strasser prepared his report from outside the oil-rich country. 

However, free expression advocates welcomed the adoption of a resolution calling for continued monitoring of the country’s record on free speech and human rights, with 196 members voting in favour and only 13 against. The resolution was based on a report by the CoE’s rapporteurs to Azerbaijan, who expressed “growing concern with regard to rule of law and respect for human rights” in the country and encouraged the Azerbaijani government to strengthen its commitment to honour human rights obligations.

Index on Censorship and Crow Hill Films invite you to a screening of Amazing Azerbaijan! followed by a discussion on Azerbaijan and human rights on 30 January.

The post Europe turns its back on Azerbaijan’s political prisoners appeared first on Index on Censorship.

As an arcane UN body seeks new relevance and campaigns to take over internet governance, Dominique Lazanski — a member of the UK WCIT-12 delegation — outlines the risks it poses to net freedom and free speech

At the beginning of November I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to attend the Internet Governance Forum. As the imported London taxi cabs zipped along the streets, my old school friend who now lives in Baku explained to me that in preparation for the Eurovision Song Contest earlier this year, the government built new facades on the ageing, Soviet buildings in order to revitalise the fronts of the buildings that face the street. This temporary veneer, placed on top of a series of ever crumbling structures and not designed to last, reminded me of the what the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is hoping to achieve in the World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT): make itself relevant, if only for a short while.

WCIT begins tomorrow (December 3) and lasts for two weeks. This is where the much-discussed International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) treaty will be renegotiated and discussed for the first time since 1988. The ITU was founded in the 1860s as a single place in which telephone and telegraph standardisation could take place across multiple countries and territories with differing standards and payment systems. The ITRs as a treaty was one way in which this could be achieved through the ITU process, and the 1988 ITRs focused on telephone exchanging and payments.

WCIT will take place in Dubai from 3 – 14 December

Back in 1988 the internet was barely a twinkle in the eyes of those who participated in the last WCIT. The rapid growth of what we know today as the internet has hit the revenue of traditional telecommunications. We all know the story: the decentralised, pervasive information and communication network has grown rapidly providing freedom of speech, opportunities and prosperity to all, including those in developing countries and the aged population in Europe. The benefits of the internet seem obvious to us, but at the WCIT those benefits and how they were achieved will be questioned.

The current internet governance model is one in which all can participate. It is a multi stakeholder. The Internet Governance Forum that I just attended, along with members of Index on Censorship and other civil society groups, is the main, annual opportunity in which anyone who wants to attend – indeed any stakeholder – can participate. It is free of charge and invites all levels of experience and expression. Regional events throughout the year offer similar opportunities including those hosted by the Internet Society and the OECD.

This model is currently under threat at the WCIT. The ITRs were never meant to have anything to do with the internet, but governments who attempt to control their own people, often unsuccessfully, through limited access to websites and other online services, are proposing to place tighter restrictions on the internet itself in the name of spam and cyber security through the treaty. The multi stakeholder model is not only under threat from them, but is also under threat from other proposals closer to home, like the “sender pay” model that European Telecommunications Network Operators (ETNO) has put forth which will require a payment from the originator of the web content. The list of other proposals that would fundamentally change the way the internet works goes on, but in all of these proposals, governments would be in control of internet governance and it would no longer be a multi stakeholder model.

The Center for Democracy and Technology has done a fantastic job of highlighting these issues and they have tools and a joint letter to sign up to. Dot next put all of the new proposals online for the ITRs recently, as did WCIT Leaks. The documents were previously only available to members of the ITU — and that does not include civil society. At the WCIT conference itself, only government delegations are allowed to attend. Though the UK and US have civil society members on their delegation, most countries will not. How can an international treaty on telecommunications which may now include the internet, not include all stakeholders who, for the last seven years, have been discussing internet governance at the Internet Governance Forum?

So for the first two weeks in December, we will wait to see what exactly happens at the WCIT and what the new ITRs will look like. Many countries, including the UK, will seek to ensure that the ITRs and the resulting treaty remain as top-level principles, that will not force restrictive conditions that could change the internet. Many will not, however, seek to achieve this same goal. And for most of us who work in civil society groups, we will have no say in the final outcome. At the beginning of 2013 the ITU may have a new veneer called internet governance, but the same old, closed system of governing telecommunications will stand behind it, crumbling slowly despite its best attempts.

Dominique Lazanski is the head of digital policy at the TaxPayers’ Alliance and a member of the UK delegation to WCIT-12.

What can you do?

Index and many other civil society organisations that fight for free speech and internet freedom oppose moves to give the ITU authority over the internet. Join more than 33,000 other citizens from 166 nations and sign here to ask your nation’s leaders to protect global internet freedom

If you are an academic or work for a civil society organisation — join us by signing on here and send the letter to government officials who are participating in the ITU process

==

The post The obscure threat to the internet you need to know about appeared first on Index on Censorship.

More on this story

Witnessing Azerbaijan’s autocracy in action, Mike Harris reports from the Internet Governance Forum

Azerbaijan’s chaotic capital Baku has been spruced up this year for the government’s two propaganda victories — its hosting of the Eurovision song contest earlier in the year, and this week’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF). That a global forum debating the future of internet freedom should be held in an autocracy (Autocracy 2.0 as blogger Emin Milli dubbed it) has raised questions over the UN’s criteria for the conference hosts. These questions are growing in volume as our hosts continue to harass local activists trying to draw attention to the country’s shocking human rights record.

The overly friendly registration staff at the IGF are members of a pro-government youth organisation and security is tight and formal. Yesterday, the IGF’s Secretariat attempted to prevent the distribution of two reports Searching for Freedom: Online Expression in Azerbaijan and The Right to Remain Silent: Freedom of Expression in Azerbaijan.

An IGF coordinator told a representative from the reports’ publisher Expression Online (a group of local human rights organisations including the Human Rights Club, the Azerbaijan Media Center and the Institute for Reporters‚ Freedom and Safety):

“You are not allowed to distribute these reports within IGF premises because the report was perceived by the Secretariat as an attempt to attack one of the stakeholder group”, that stakeholder being the government of Azerbaijan. The Secretariat staff suggested that the distributors of the report seek permission from the communications ministry to distribute the report saying: “If your government does not find the content insulting we will provide you with the booth and allow distribution of those two reports.”

While domestic NGOs are subject to strict rules preventing them from distributing literature, on Twitter #igf12 hashtag continual mention was made to Azerbaijan’s poor human rights record. There is a strange disconnect between domestic repression and a new found tolerance by the authorities for international criticism.

My visit to one of Baku’s Courts today brought home quite how autocratic the regime is. Journalist and editor Avaz Zeynalli has been held in prison since October last year on allegations of extortion made by a Member of Parliament, Gular Akhmadova (who has since resigned her seat after being accused of misconduct). Today Zeynalli and his lawyer Rashid Hajili (winner of Index’s law and campaigning award in 2010) were expecting a chance to cross-examine Akhmadova’s account.

Akhmadova failed to turn up at court. Zeynalli, held in a steel cage in front of the judges and surrounded by police, lost his temper. He has spent a year away from his family in detention. It was a scene that brought home the real Azerbaijan.

The prosecutor-general claims he has video evidence of Zeynalli threatening to publish defamatory stories about Akhmadova if he is not paid a bribe. However, the video has not been entered into evidence. Neither Zeynalli nor his lawyer have seen it; instead they have been given a written transcript of the alleged conversation. It’s evidence that falls short of judicial norms. When Zeynalli addressed the court, the prosecutor-general told the judge that the journalist was “repeating himself a lot for the internationals here”, referring to Index on Censorship, Human Rights Watch and Article 19, who were monitoring this trial.

The government of Azerbaijan makes much of the fact that local journalists and bloggers including Khadija Ismayilova (the victim of a viscious blackmail attempt) and Emin Milli (a former prisoner of conscience) can attend the IGF and criticise their government.

It’s worth noting that this is not normal. Nine journalists and three human rights defenders are currently in jail — most of their cases can be linked to criticism of Azerbaijan’s leadership. There are serious concerns that while local critics of the government are safe for the moment, when the international audience leaves Baku a series of prosecutions will follow. And it’s unlikely justice will be served.

Mike Harris is Head of Advocacy at Index, he tweets at @mjrharris

More on this story:

You can find more about the human rights situation on Index’s Azerbaijan: Access Denied page

The post Letter from Baku appeared first on Index on Censorship.