Index calls on Syria to release human rights workers

February 23rd, 2012

The undersigned organisations call on the Syrian authorities to immediately release Mazen Darwish, a prominent Syrian human rights defender and Director of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) – as well as seven of his colleagues and a visitor, who were arrested during a raid on their Damascus offices (more…)

Thailand: Human rights defenders on trial for leading demonstration

February 21st, 2012

The return to Pearl Roundabout

February 14th, 2012

A year ago today, mass protests took place at the now demolished Pearl Roundabout in the Bahrain capital, Manama. This year protesters have been attempting to return to the square where, for a month last year, thousands gathered to call for change. Protesters documented their failed attempts to reach the roundabout on 12 February, when a march to the symbolic square was quickly crushed by security forces. Clashes have escalated in the lead up to the anniversary of Bahrain’s mass protests, which has now claimed at least 60 lives.

During the attempt to return to the roundabout on Sunday, activist and prolific Twitter user, Zainab Al-Khawaja was arrested by security forces, having previously been arrested and released on bail in December. According to her sister Maryam Al-Khawaja, head of foreign relations for the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, Zainab was detained on charges of “illegal gathering” and “disturbing the peace”.  She will be in prison for the 14 February protests, like her father, who is currently serving a life sentence for his participation in protests last year.

Still, protesters are determined to return to the heavily monitored square. Last night, hundreds were dispersed through the use of  tear gas by officials.

Prominent human rights activist and director of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, Nabeel Rajab, said that he was taking his family to the roundabout to remind the government that they have “legitimate demands”, to “give people strength” and to show the commitment of leaders:

Why is Bahrain keeping out the international community?

February 14th, 2012

This week the departure lounge at Bahrain’s airport seems to be full of people who were turned back at the passport desk without being allowed into the country.  The authorities are incredibly sensitive about who’s going to see what and report what during the days around the 14 February anniversary of last year’s mass protests.

Bob Naiman, an American who was refused entry a couple of days ago, said that groups of British and Spanish business people were among the human rights observers and journalists being shut out.  I didn’t get that far myself this time. I’d planned to go to Bahrain at the end of January, but a week before I was going to leave I received the dreaded letter telling me not to bother, that I should wait until March before I tried to get into Bahrain, when a committee set up to implement reforms would have done its work.

The week before Rick Sollom from Physicians for Human Rights was turned away when he landed in Bahrain. Authorities told him that “all government officials are under tremendous work pressure” and that he should come back after the end of February when a trip would be “more beneficial.” Then last week some journalists were allowed visas to enter and others weren’t, notably Nick Kristof of the New York Times, whose brilliant coverage of Bahrain has made him persona non grata with the regime.

These are stiff reminders that the Bahraini government should be judged on its actions, not its words.  Denying (rather, “delaying”) access to human rights organisations is a hallmark of repressive regimes. Bahrain already ticked many of those boxes in 2011. Mass arrests? Check. Torture? Check? Deaths in custody? Check. Shootings of civilians? Unfair trials? Attacks on places of worship? Targeting of peaceful dissidents? Check, check, check, check.

Of course Bahrainis are more than capable of reporting what happens and distributing it everywhere, which makes the attempts to restrict access all the more farcical. Bahraini activists and journalists are among the most tech-savvy in the world, and events are being relayed at the speed of Twitter both day and night.  So why Bahrain thinks it’s a good PR move to keep prominent international human rights organisations and journalists out is anyone’s guess.  No-one really benefits from this — we don’t get in, and the Bahraini government looks bad. The only winner is the coffee shop in the departure lounge.

Brian Dooley is the director of the Human Rights Defenders programme at Human Rights First. He tweets at @dooley_dooley

Returned University of Bahrain students still face challenges

February 14th, 2012

After the events of 13 March 2011 and the shameful attack on University of Bahrain (UoB) students by a group of militias that supported by the Bahraini regime, the UOB administration dismissed more than 400 innocent students and many of them get arrested. I was one of the students expelled because of participating in some protests in and outside the university.

A while later, the administration decided to bring the expelled students, but not all of them, back for the start of the next semester. There are more than 30 banned who have not been allowed to continue studying at University of Bahrain. The university changed to a place that you could not study in; it was like a military base with scattered checkpoints. Many students could not attend their classes on time because of the checkpoints. Barbed wire surrounded everything. The General Directorate of Criminal Investigation (CID) agents were in every corner. Armed forces were spreading at all of the gates, and there were more pictures of the regime than educational boards and banners in the university.

In addition, two female students kidnapped from the campus were tortured by masked people with the assistance of University of Bahrain security.

A few months ago, University of Bahrain administration told the rest of the expelled students that they can continue studying by the beginning of the next term. Afterwards, a group of regime supporters protested at the campus against the decision, but neither the security team nor the Ministry of Interior (MoI) forces tried to stop them by saying it was peaceful, proving the double standards about dealing with protests and gatherings

Mohammed Bahar is a University of Bahrain student who was dismissed during the crackdown last year  

USA: Bradley Manning moves step closer to full court martial

January 13th, 2012

Bahrain: Human rights defender attacked

January 9th, 2012

Foreign Secretary responds to open letter on freedom of expression

January 5th, 2012

In response to an open letter from Index and a number of media freedom groups, Foreign Secretary William Hague outlines the Coalition Government’s policy on freedom of expression and the internet.

Thank you for your letter of 1 November about the Coalition Government’s policy on freedom of expression.

This Government rejects censorship and surveillance that undermines people’s rights to express themselves, organise or communicate freely. We are proud to stand up for freedom of expression and privacy. Britain will always be on the side of those aspiring to greater political and economic freedom anywhere in the world, whether this is on or off the internet.

In the UK, we are striving for a model for internet governance where governments, industry and users of the Internet work together. Our obligations under the Human Rights Act, underpinned by our international treaty obligations, are central. As you know, these protect freedom of expression, association and assembly from undue interference from the government or other public bodies.  International human rights conventions rightly set very high thresholds for any action by the state to suppress or control the free flow of information. Any action we take will be in accordance with these obligations.

I would like to address some specific issues you raise.

We believe that parents should be provided with wide tools to enable them to voluntarily block harmful and inappropriate content. Active choice is the preferred approach, with parents given a choice as to whether or not to activate parental controls when switching on a new internet enabled device or connecting to a new internet connection for the first time. It is important to distinguish between government encouraging people to make more use of existing protections as a matter of choice, and the government deciding what people can and cannot do online. Our plans do not prevent access to legal material, but seek to make it much clearer that protections exist, and to encourage their use. The position of Claire Perry regarding the default filtering of adult content is not the position of this government.

You referred to the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament earlier this year in the wake of recent disturbances in the UK.  Let me be clear. The Prime Minister did not suggest that social networks should be closed down. The government has not and is not seeking any new powers in this area. We recognise the enormous benefits that social networking brings, not least in the valuable part it played in helping citizens avoid trouble spots and in galvanizing community clean up efforts. Social networking itself was not the root cause of the disturbances, but, as our courts have recognised, did offer an enhanced means of communication to some individuals’ intent on inciting or facilitating widespread criminal behaviour.  In light of this our law enforcement agencies, the network providers and social media organisations are looking at ways they can enhance co-operation to prevent the networks being used for criminal behaviour, in accordance with, and in order to uphold UK law.

Finally you raised concerns about powers of surveillance and access to personal information online. It is of course the responsibility of government to maintain capabilities to investigate crimes and to protect individuals where they are threatened by criminals, terrorism or foreign powers.  The use of covert surveillance by the authorised government agencies, for example the acquisition of communications data and the interception of communications, is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).  RIPA’s strict safeguards, including independent oversight, ensure that such surveillance is, and will continue to be, fully consistent with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As I outlined at the London Conference on Cyberspace (LCC), the UK’s approach to the future of cyberspace has at its heart a simple proposition: behaviour that is unacceptable in the offline world is also unacceptable online. This emphatically includes the curtailing of human rights. Human rights are universal, and apply with equal force online as they do offline. The UK will continue to take a lead role in ensuing these principles are upheld.