Greek Journalist Kostas Vaxevani after his arrest for exposing alleged tax cheats – Athens – Stathis Kalligeris | Demotix

Index on Censorship and other freedom of expression groups urge the European Union to defend free speech

IFEX signatories are deeply concerned and appalled at the renewed attempts to prosecute Greek editor Kostas Vaxevanis and the wider chilling effects of this effort to silence a journalist acting in the public interest

Vaxevanis was arrested last month, acquitted of breaking data privacy laws on 1 November, and now faces a re-trial, all for having published a leaked list (nicknamed the “Lagarde list”) of over 2,000 names of Greeks allegedly holding bank accounts in Switzerland.

Following our letter sent to the European Union on 5 November, Index and other IFEX members call on the EU — which has in the past been quick to denounce threats to media freedom — to defend free speech and to condemn this unwarranted harassment and prosecution.

Letter on the renewed attempts to imprison Greek journalist Kostas Vaxevanis – 23 November 2012

The post Europe has a duty to speak out on Vaxevanis appeared first on Index on Censorship.

BRUSSELS, 01/11/2012 (INDEX). She has been described as Europe’s “most wired politician” and is one of the few MEPs who really understands the internet. As the rapporteur leading on the European Parliament’s report and proposal that there should be an EU strategy on digital freedom in foreign policy, published earlier this year (and currently being amended by MEPs), Marietje Schaake is blazing a trail in pushing for technology and human rights to be mainstreamed in EU external action.

A member of the Dutch social liberal party D66, Schaake has been a member of the European Parliament since 2009, and sits on the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Board of Governors of the European Internet Foundation. She also serves as vice-chair of the Supervisory Board of Free Press Unlimited, and was last month appointed to lead a report on press and media freedom worldwide, due in early 2013.

Index met Schaake in Brussels to discuss what the European Parliament is doing — and should be doing — to defend online freedoms and how the internet can stay open in an age of multiple threats.

INDEX: What would you say are the greatest threats to digital freedom of expression in Europe today?

MARIETJE SCHAAKE: There are a number of threats. Roughly speaking, governments have a hard time acknowledging and reconciling the empowerment of individuals. The monopoly of power and information that is eroding (…) I think that’s exciting and to some extent being redistributed to individuals. Power structures that were once hierarchical are more horizontal.

This offers great opportunities, but there are governments who, especially when they feel like they’re facing a crisis, want to reclaim control; they want to ban certain functions such as instant messaging or the use of technology in certain areas, such as in the UK after the riots. But I think there’s a lack of understanding that what we do here has an impact on our credibility abroad.

For example, the European legal standard is that technologies needs to have lawful interception and capacity for police and law enforcement. In Europe in principle this is bound by strict rules. But if this technology is used in a different context where there is no rule of law, then it means the technological backdoor is permanently open. In a country such as Iran, mobile and internet communications are intercepted systematically and then used to track and trace dissidents and human rights defenders.

Another trend I see is the increased power of corporations, a lack of democratic oversight and checks and balances of the responsibilities that they take and are sometimes pushed to take in regulating the online environment.

INDEX: With this pushback from corporations, what should the role of democratic governments be to ensure that, while the internet can innovate and advance, fundamental freedoms are not encroached upon?

MS: We should make sure technology is included in human rights laws, making sure that these laws apply in different contexts. The same goes for competition laws or net neutrality laws. Technologies are developing so quickly and policy making is lagging behind; this is partially a result of democracy, the belief that there should be many voices giving input, we see consensus and these things take time. But I do think it’s important that we ensure the application of laws considers the changing environment. This is now mainly fought out in courts.

We have to make sure that we make and adapt policies to be relevant to today’s age. I would say people come first, not corporate interests or technology itself. There is a tendency to focus on the specific technology, for example, we’re still talking about whether downloading from a legal source should be legal or illegal, but world is now streaming — it’s moving on. The world has already moved on.

While technologies develop rapidly, policy making is slow. Therefore putting the rights of the people at the heart of the decisions, policy is more relevant. There is a tendency by the movie and music industry to push for outsourcing of monitoring illegal downloading by internet service providers (ISPs). This would be an undesirable move; we have a separation of powers for a reason. Without appropriate understanding of what this proposal implies, it is difficult to ensure people’s fundamental rights are protected.

INDEX: And net neutrality? What are the threats here to the openness of the internet?

MS: I think net neutrality should be guaranteed. The real risk is a race to the bottom where business models push out certain non-commercial actors, where public value of information and public value of access to it is under-estimated. That information becomes merely a commodity for businesses to make money on, and we don’t appreciate the consequences of that.

Have you heard of the filter bubble? Eli Pariser [co-founder of Avaaz] has written about the impact of search engines but also about filtering information, not only by search engines but also by social media, whereby we try the same term but get different results because search engines know your profile and that, for instance, you prefer information about conservative politics and I prefer information about sports. And that way you could say that people who are always reading right-wing news will perpetually be presented with more similar links. People are seeing more and more of what they already believe, so it’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The impact of these algorithms and increased use of search engines has not been investigated very thoroughly yet.

We must also keep the public value of information in mind. If information is systematically ranked differently, and if people are drawn into their own perspectives systematically, structurally and perpetually, what does that mean? We must understand much more how business models may alter the public value of information and how technologies are designed often to optimise profits for shareholders, but are not designed to optimise human rights or democracy. I would like to go back to a place where we focused much more on ensuring fundamental democratic principles of people’s universal human rights and that we continue to test whether new environments actually ensure that sufficiently.

INDEX: How feasible is a model where human rights are protected?

MS: Well, there’s a lot of updating of rules that I do think one of the key things I’m working on is to stop digital arms being exported from the EU to countries where there are known or systematic human rights violations. [Update 01/11: it was announced on 23 October that the European Parliament has endorsed stricter European export controls of digital arms]. It is a disgrace that this is still going on, I think it undermines the EU’s credibility. Everyone in the public that I’ve talked to about this believes it’s outrageous. There is a technology gap; a lot of people are not aware that the technology they’re using for recording and making [content], these are companies whose names we don’t know, they have a consumer base, they sell to third country governments, law enforcement agencies, police. They are a different kind of company than Google or Twitter or Facebook that a lot of people feel a personal relationship to because they use their services. So I think updating export regulations is feasible.

The discussion on net neutrality is becoming more eminent. In the Netherlands we have net neutrality laws, I’m very happy about that. I think there will be a push for more protection of human rights because it will also come from the market, so it won’t only be governments that have to take their primary responsibilities vis a vis the public and corporations, but it will also be a choice for people to seek different products where they feel like their rights are better protected. I am sure there will be more of those being developed, I think we’re in a transition period where people are only beginning to understand the deep impact of technology.

Marietje Schaake. Photo by Sebastiaan ter Burg on Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

INDEX: So how do we educate people about security and privacy online while ensuring their freedoms are protected? 

MS: Security and freedom are an integral part of each other in the context of the rule of law. Educating people is really important so they can make better choices and are aware of the big picture. A lot of people now think that services are free, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch — there’s always a revenue to be made. So making people understand how it happens I think is important.

And again, look at context within which technology may be used but at earlier stage. I’m in favour of doing human rights impact assessment at a research and development phase so that before something is widespread and everybody is using it we can actually stop and think and see what kind of impact it might have. People have warned us for years but we see it happening now, that over-the counter commercial security IT software is used against human rights defenders in third world countries. Malware, weaknesses in common systems like Microsoft are used to take over people’s computers. It’s becoming cheaper, more readily available and more widespread, and it turns against the interests of countries they were produced from and exported from. I wish there had been more consideration of the potential impact down the line of these sorts of surveillance technologies. We should learn as we go and realise that what we sell can also be used against us. The political urgency can be increased by understanding that it’s not just happening in a foreign land, that it will have an impact closer to home.

INDEX: In the UK, we’re looking at the draft “Comms Data Bill” [which will effectively create a giant database of every UK citizen’s web and text activities]…

MS: Oh my God.

INDEX: … so how can the UK defend digital freedom while bringing into play something as restrictive or undemocratic as this?

MS: Some people also need to remind the politicians responsible that such restrictive proposals immediately hurt their credibility on the global stage. William Hague gave a huge speech about the importance of freedom and security [at the Budapest Conference on Cyberspace earlier this month]. Okay, fine, but practise what you preach! I really don’t understand whether he [Hague] realises how contradictory his own words are. So, defenders of human rights, digital freedom activists, civil rights organisations, consumer rights organisations etc can come together and start and pushing back against these kinds of excessive measures. It shows how eager governments are to retain control.

INDEX: Is this an area where the European Parliament could provide some pushback?

MS: It will certainly have to be tested against European rules to see whether it is allowed. That would be an area for internal European policies, and my focus is mostly on the rest of the world.

I hope that the UK government and those responsible for these sorts of proposals realise their credibility in the world is directly undermined. When proposals were made to ban instant messaging or to even shut down certain functions [after the UK riots], there were responses from Iran and China saying “need help?” That’s not a joke, the world is really focused on what we do, it’s not only about being credible but about impacts that can backfire.

INDEX: There’s a very strong argument that if the EU — or any Western government body — is to defend digital freedom abroad it has to get its house in order first. What would you say are the first things the EU Parliament can do to achieve that?

MS: There’s a real confusion about key elements of democracy, like separation of powers. You can’t just have private companies engaging in law enforcement tasks. There are core values like the presumption of innocence, and then there are core human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press. These are all at stake when we look at the way in which, for example, intellectual property rights are being enforced.

I would hope there are lessons that are being drawn in the EU from measures against terrorism which initially were justified on the basis of saying “no one wants the worst of the worst crimes”. The same happens here; no-one wants terrorism or child pornography or cybercrime. The question is does it justify the measures proposed and are these measures proportionate? In law this is a very important concept, proportionality. I think that a lot of the measures proposed are not proportionate. There have to be checks in a court of law instead of at a policy level. What we can do is check against existing EU regulations to see if they are in line or not, but otherwise this should be tested before court.

The internet and technologies have changed a lot, but not people’s universal human rights. We do not need many new laws, nor should we over-regulate the internet. However, human rights and competition laws should apply equally online and offline. Technologies should be integrated and mainstreamed.

But I’d also urge political leaders to be leaders and not take some kind of panicked knee-jerk reactions to things they can’t control. The consequences can be disastrous.

Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index. She tweets at @martaruco

The post INDEX Q&A: Talking to Europe’s most wired politician appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This has been an eventful year for relations between Belarus and the European Union. There has been an extraordinary mix of conflict and engagement, from a freeze on the assets of Belarus businessmen to the launch of the Dialogue on Modernisation, a new EU initiative to encourage democratisation in Belarus.

But the essential problem in the EU-Belarus relationship remains: EU policy has always been aimed at getting the authoritarian Belarus state to engage in democratisation, but the EU has never given more than formal support to the role of Belarus civil society. EU policy is not coordinated with Belarus democrats. They cannot currently democratise Belarus alone: they need the help of the EU.

But European politicians think Belarus civil society is weak and do not want to bet on it. So EU policy is based on the irrational hope that an undemocratic state will democratise itself.

European policy on Belarus: more for more?

The EU’s approach to Belarus is framed by the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). The big idea is that the security of the EU depends on the stability and prosperity of its neighbouring states, which in turn depends on their being democratic. Particularly since the enlargement of 2004, the EU has been preoccupied with democratisation of the Belarusian regime.

After 1996 the EU tried different ways of putting pressure on Belarus, from hard political rhetoric to partial exclusion from the ENP, in the hope that it could turn the Belarus authorities in the right direction. But that approach didn’t work. By 2008 the EU had to admit that Belarus had managed to build a sustainable authoritarian regime. “Restoration of democracy” could no longer be a reasonable pre-condition for re-engaging in cooperation. Insisting upon it would simply move Belarus further away from the EU, raising questions about the effectiveness of the whole ENP process. A new approach was necessary.

In 2009 the Eastern Partnership EU initiative (EaP) created a different framework. EaP allowed Belarus to participate without any preconditions, though development of the mutual relationship was to be guided by the so-called “more for more” principle: the more democratisation there was in the partner country, the deeper the integration with the EU could be.

European policy in the eyes of Belarus authorities

Belarus agreed to play the new European game, which gave it a lot of room for manoeuvre in its relations with the EU. The “more for more” principle allowed it to use the European offer à la carte, choosing only to act in areas in which no significant political change was required and which had evident economic impact. The benefits of democratisation and the European way are not self-evident for the Belarus authorities. Belarus and Azerbaijan are much more prosperous without democracy and serious cooperation with Europe than Ukraine or Moldova, both of which have made much greater moves towards democratisation.  So the Belarus government tried to restrict cooperation to economic, energy and environment policy, leaving political questions aside. The European integration carrot failed decisively on the evening of the presidential election of 19 December 2010, when the Belarus authorities violently broke up a giant peaceful demonstration in Minsk against electoral fraud.

Since December 2010 the EU’s interest in democratisation of Belarus have led to protracted tensions with the Belarus regime’s interest in financial support for economic modernisation.

Brussels recalls ambassadors of all EU member states from Belarus, February 2012. Alexander Mazurkevich | Demotix

It was obvious that the events of the 19 December 2010 needed a response. The EU was torn between punishment, turning a blind eye and wait-and-see.

There have always been EU supporters of strict measures against the Belarusian regime. But there have always been too many obstacles to implement this approach, even after December 2010. An economic embargo could provoke humanitarian disaster. Complete political isolation of Belarus would not be acceptable because of the need to support democratic forces in the country and because of Belarus’s geopolitical importance.

The most desirable European policy for the Belarus authorities would be for Brussels to turn a blind eye — and there are powerful business interests in favour. Lithuania, Latvia and Slovenia have even argued against targeted economic sanctions against Belarus companies and businessmen close to Lukashenko regime. But this approach seems unlikely to prevail. It would entail massive political concessions from the EU — and the Belarus regime does not have the leverage that oil-rich Azerbaijan has.

The compromise option appears to kill two birds with one stone and has been favoured by the EU since December 2010. On one hand, via symbolic sanctions (visa bans, targeted economic sanctions) the EU expresses its principles: it condemns anti-democratic practices and violations of human rights in Belarus. On the other, normalisation of relations depends on a symbolic concession from Belarus authorities: the release of political prisoners. It means that the tension in EU-Belarus relations is put on hold.

Modernisation?

While the EU was waiting for a positive reply from the Belarus government, in spring 2012 the European Commission launched the European Dialogue on Modernisation with Belarus. The initiative appears to be a new attempt to influence the situation in Belarus to make up for the lack of any other effective measures.

The dialogue platform was publicised as open for participation by the political opposition and civil society. There was one condition for the participation of the government, the release of political prisoners. In theory, it should bring a European Belarus into being and lead to necessary reforms for the country’s modernisation. The process could also serve as a basis for future bilateral EU-Belarus relations, including Belarus civil society as well as the government.

But such an outcome is of no interest for the Belarus government. The authorities consider that modernisation can be postponed. The authoritarian system can maintain economic welfare and political stability, and it can find solutions in crises. Many people are still satisfied with the quality of life the regime provides them with. So resuming relations with the EU is not a vital necessity for the Belarus government.

There are many in Belarus, frustrated by the lack of opportunities for economic, social, professional development, who support the ideas of modernisation and Europeanisation of the country. They are the core of civil society in the country and encompass just about all independent non-state structures, including NGOs and private business entities. The problem is that civil society is excluded from decision-making and has no political power.

The European Dialogue on Modernisation could help civil society and the Belarus political opposition to transform the country. It gives them legitimacy for political discussion and makes it clear that Belarus needs to engage with experts as it proceeds to democratisation.

But although the EU can help Belarus democratise, it can’t solve the opposition’s problems — and no EU policy towards Belarus will ever be successful without strong support in the country itself. Democratisation must be a joint project; the EU policy needs to be more coordinated with Belarus civil society. The Dialogue on Modernisation might provide welcome space, but to work it requires two things: consolidation of Belarus civil society in one democratic movement; and clear support from the EU for the new movement. If the former is the responsibility of people in Belarus, the latter depends on EU politicians’ will to abjure their dangerous games with autocrats.

Andrei Yahorau is the Director of the Centre for European Transformation in Minsk

Alena Zuikova is a junior analyst of the Centre for European Transformation and a representative to Brussels of Eurobelarus International Consortium

The post Europe’s Belarus failure appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post EU to enshrine “right to be forgotten” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Tens of thousands protest Hungarian media law appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Cuba: Hunger strike dissident wins Sakharov Prize appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This article was originally published on the Guardian’s Liberty Central

While we cannot be sure that there is a heaven, three weeks ago we received partial confirmation that hell is a reality with a known location. Its address is the infamous Eiraeiro prison in Eritrea, 10 miles north of the capital city Asmara, where 35 high-level political prisoners of the Eritrean regime have been held captive in recent years.

Fifteen of these prisoners are known to have died, nine are suffering from serious medical problems and the others are enduring brutal prison conditions. One of them is my brother, the journalist Dawit Isaak, a Swedish citizen, who was first detained in 2001. He was briefly released in 2005, only to be rearrested again within days. In all of his eight and a half years of detention, he has never been formally charged with a crime. Isaak and nine journalist colleagues were arrested seemingly for nothing more than criticising the lack of press freedom and democratic debate in Eritrea.

The most recent revelations of a former prison guard who managed to flee to neighbouring Ethiopia in January, and whose information was first reported in Sweden in April, make clear that Dawit and other inmates are kept in horrendous circumstances. They are not allowed any contact with the outside world or with each other. Their cells are brutally hot almost all year round. They are constantly shackled and the only time they leave their cells is to spend one hour per day in a walled courtyard measuring four square meters. The men receive virtually no medical care and many appear to be psychologically broken.

According to a former guard, who fled because he feared for his own life if the prisoners died, the deprivations suffered by the inmates are “worse than torture”. Under pressure from critics, the Swedish government has repeatedly refused comment, asserting that it is doing everything it can to rescue Dawit. The Swedish public, our family and human rights activists are increasingly concerned, however, that Dawit, who suffers from diabetes, may be lost before help reaches him. Their concerns appear well justified.

Why, for example, have Swedish officials so far not bothered to interview the escaped prison guard?

We would like to stress that we do not completely discount the value of silent diplomacy. While we fully appreciate the enormous difficulties and complexities of the case, the question that presents itself most urgently is, what can we all do together to save Dawit before it is too late? Efforts at the EU level, such as seeking the suspension of aid to Eritrea, as well as applying diplomatic pressure on the regime, are vitally important. The EU process is slow and bureaucratic, and the representatives’ attention is currently diverted by the spreading global financial crisis.

We strongly believe that the battle also has to be taken directly to Eritrea. President Isaias Afewerki has to be prevailed upon to accept a credible emissary who negotiates Dawit’s release. At the same time, the Eritrean regime’s violation of international humanitarian conventions for the treatment of prisoners, such as ensuring adequate food, medical care and other basic rights, needs to be highlighted in the most stringent terms. A Swedish or international medical team — under the auspices of the International Red Cross or an organisation such as Doctors Without Borders — should be placed on 24-hour standby to leave for Eritrea.

The Eritrean government should be requested every single day to give clearance for such a visit. That would highlight the problem while also underscoring the most necessary action to be taken this very instant. The idea that Afewerki cannot be dealt with, that he is worse than any other dictator, is a fallacy. Sweden and the EU must now send a strong signal. They must officially and publicly demand access to a prisoner who is not only a full Swedish citizen, but also an EU citizen (its only prisoner of conscience). Dawit, tragically, stands as a symbol for the continued suffering of the victims of human rights abuses worldwide. If democratic governments fail to firmly stand up to such outrages, they not only lose credibility but become passive aides of the torturers who commit these crimes.

This open letter was signed by Esayas Isaak, brother of Dawit Isaak, founder of the Free Dawit Committee,as well as Ingvar Carlsson, former prime minister of Sweden, Ola Ullsten, former prime minister of Sweden, Mogens Lykketoft, former foreign minister of Denmark, Thorvald Stoltenberg, former foreign minister of Norway, Carl Tham, former minister of education, Sweden, Cecilia Wigström, member of the Swedish Parliament, leader of the All-Party Group for Dawit Isaak, Maxamed Daahir Afrax, author, president of the Somali-speaking PEN, Djibouti, Russell Banks, author, USA, André Brink, author, South Africa, John Le Carré, author, Great Britain, Nuruddin Farah, author, Somalia, Abdulrazak Gurnah, author, Tanzania/Zanzibar, Charles Onyango-Obbo, editor, The Nation, Nairobi, Shailja Patel, author, Kenya, Abdourahman Waberi, author, Djibouti, Günter Wallraff, author and activist, Germany, Ove Bring, professor of international law, Sweden, David Matas, international human rights attorney, Canada, Elsa Chyrum, director of Human Rights Concern – Eritrea, Great Britain, Joel Simon, executive director, Committee to Protect Journalists, USA Jean-François Julliard, secretary general of Reporters Sans Frontières, France, Christian Rickert, reporter Ohne Grenzen, Germany, Peter Englund, author, permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, Jesper Bengtsson, president of Reporters without Borders, Sweden, Mats Söderlund, president of the Swedish Writer’s Union, Ola Larsmo, chairman Swedish PEN, Mehari Abraham, Eritrean journalist in exile, program director Tv-Zete, Sweden, Susanne Berger, researcher, USA, Vibeke Sperling, senior correspondent Politiken, Denmark, and more. For a full list of signatories, please visit this page

The post EU governments must support Eritrea’s prisoners of conscience appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Malta: MEPs asked to raise concerns over censorship appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Belarusian police raid Polish cultural centre and arrest activist appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Moscow gay pride organisers complain about ban to European court appeared first on Index on Censorship.