Rodrigo Neto was shot while leaving a restaurant on the evening of Friday 8 March. Two men on a motorcycle accosted him and opened fire. The presenter was hit on the head and on the chest. The gunmen escaped unidentified.

The case is still being investigated by the police.

State Deputy Durval Ângelo, who is president of the Human Rights Committee on Minas Gerais’s Legislative Assembly, claims the journalist had given him information about policemen involved in crimes on the Ipatinga area.

Workmates of Rodrigo from Vanguarda radio station  are sure the murder is connected to his work as a crime show presenter.

Rodrigo was not the first radio presenter to be gunned down in Brazil this year. On 22nd February, journalist Mafaldo Góis was shot and killed in the town of Jaguaribe, in the northeastern state of Ceará. His death is believed to have been ordered by a local drug dealer, cited by Góis in this crime radio show.

Brazil had the 5th highest number of journalists killed in the world in 2012, with 5 cases, according to the International Press Institute .

The post Brazil: Radio presenter murder unsolved appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Autocratic, authoritarian and totalitarian states take it upon themselves to actively stifle freedom of expression. These states can look very different – “socialist” North Korea may seem very different to “theocratic” Iran, but even with vastly differing cultures and political landscapes, we can draw similarities between the methods used by these regimes to suffocate and in some cases entirely suppress free speech.

The three main methods authoritarian states use to curtail free speech are: the chill through direct intimidation; the chill through repressive laws and the chill online — using the internet to curtail free speech.

Direct intimidation

Ai Weiwei

Threats, imprisonment, torture and even murder are used to curtail free speech, particularly that of regime critics and activists. This is particularly common in the most authoritarian countries such as China or Iran. The murder of journalists and political activists in authoritarian states remains frequent and the arrest and beating of Chinese artist Ai Weiwei changed the country’s political landscape by showing that no one, however famous or influential, was beyond the state’s reach.

States that inhibit freedom of expression often curtail a spectrum of co-dependent human rights: freedom of association (UNDHR Article 17), the right to privacy (UNDHR Article 12), even the right to life (UNDHR Article 3) and freedom from torture (UNDHR Article 5). And because these rights are co-dependent, the most active members of civil society place themselves in direct danger of reprisal: journalists attempting to document human rights violations are targeted by the state as they attempt to stop such information being diseminiated. Azeri journalist Idrak Abbasov, an Index on Censorship award winner, was beaten earlier this year by security guards for writing about the government of Azerbaijan’s demolition of private housing. States generally don’t attempt to hide these attacks, knowing that the fear they arouse in civil society is useful in dissuading others from challenging its power.

In autocratic states —  those that at least attempt the veneer of democratic respectability — repressive laws are at the forefront of the state’s attempt to silence dissent. In Apartheid South Africa, the hated Publications Act banned any work “harmful to the relations between any sections of the inhabitants of the Republic”, which the authorities defended as an attempt to stop racial violence (like similar race hate legislation elsewhere). Every member of the ‘committee of experts’ on the censoring Appeal Board was white and part of the regime and the legislation was used to silence dissenting voices calling for change. Russia, which as a Council of Europe member must implement rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, has recently passed a series of strikingly repressive laws including legislation making protesting extremely difficult, a new law to restrict NGOs accepting foreign donations and the re-introduction of criminal defamation.

Using the law to silence opposition

The most effective repressive laws mirror edicts also on the statute books of more democratic states. Russia can justify its position on criminal libel by noting that this legislation is still on statute in France and Italy.

Repressive laws in authoritarian states act to shut down the space for dissenting opinions: focusing on limiting independent media, the right to freedom of association (by banning certain NGOs) and the right to protest and organise. Restrictions on the free media may include laws that enforce the registration of newspapers; draconian libel laws, the offence of lese majeste, and laws that prevent whistleblowing or harm to “national interests”.

Legal impositions on free speech typically use a politicised judiciary to act as the censor within a restrictive legal framework that may also include tough laws on public order, hate crime, anti-terror legislation, blasphemy and the protection of public morality. These laws are often used against those deemed to pose the greatest threat to the stability of the regime – with the broader legal framework making it hard for opposition media to succeed commercially, or for civil society to operate legally.

Online censorship

Autocratic states are highly alert to the challenge they face online in the wake of the Arab Spring. Online freedom is increasingly under fire through server-side ISP blocking of particular websites, or even the use of national firewalls to create a highly sanitised state intranet. This prevents the spread of politically sensitive information from external sources.

In Belarus, the opposition news website Charter97 has been subjected to systematic DDOS attacks in an attempt to close the site down. These attacks often force the website’s webhost to pull the site as it causes their servers to fail. In many ways, this method is simply a continuation of the physical assaults and raids on newsrooms practiced by the regime against opposition journalists.

The internet is often seen as a force for good in these states, but it can be used against activists. State surveillance online has expanded dramatically in recent years, in part as the cost of equipment has fallen. Index has raised concerns over the export of surveillance equipment by Western firms, a failure of corporate responsibility that has allowed authoritarian states to exponentially increase their knowledge of the activities of civil society. As we are discovering, technology such as the integration of GPS into smartphones can be used in authoritarian states to track dissidents and monitor their movements to a single metre. The anonymity of the internet whilst generally useful as a tool for protecting the privacy of human rights activists, can also cloak the actions of states.

By understanding the methods of repression, democracies can act to prevent complicity.

Mike Harris is Head of Advocacy at Index on Censorship

The post The modern Big Brothers 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.

The joint statement was delivered yesterday to the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and marks the second International Day to End Impunity on November 23. The issue will be discussed at the 2nd UN Inter Agency meeting on Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, to take place 22-23 November in Vienna.

THE LONDON STATEMENT by members of the global media community on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, October 2012

We, members of the global media community meeting in London on 18 October 2012:

Condemn all cases of killings and other physical attacks, intimidation, harassment, abduction and wrongful imprisonment as well as other forms of oppression of journalists and other media workers;

Express our dismay at the failure of many governments to end impunity for the killers of journalists;

Register our disappointment and concern at the lack of effectiveness of previous United Nations interventions including UNSC Resolution 1738 on the safety of journalists in conflict and an end to impunity;

Affirm that the right of journalists and media workers to work free from harm, harassment and abuse is fundamental to freedom of expression and therefore a matter of urgent and legitimate concern for governments and societies around the world as well as the news media themselves;

Welcome the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity and declare that this historic commitment should fulfil the high expectations to which it gives rise;

Express our strong concern that in carrying forward the Plan of Action, the UN system, as well as other relevant national and international bodies, should operate effectively and in accountable ways to persuade Member States to create safe environments for working journalists;

Encourage all news media to monitor regularly the actions of their governments, judicial authorities and other institutions in implementing the Plan and ending impunity;

Propose that the acute concerns of the news media for meaningful and practical actions are fully and seriously taken into account at the UN Inter-Agency Meeting being held in Vienna in November and thereafter in the effective implementation of the UN Plan.

Annex

The following were also proposed from the floor and supported by a number of participants at the Symposium on “Media Responses to Matters of Life and Death” hosted in London by the Centre for Freedom of the Media, University of Sheffield, and BBC College of Journalism:-

1  The killing of a journalist in the course of their duty should be regarded as a crime against humanity (Bob Tyrer, The Sunday Times)
2   UNESCO should require Member States to provide yearly reports on the progress of investigations into journalist killings (Zaffar Abbas, Dawn Newspaper, Pakistan)
3   Media houses are encouraged to provide proper safety training and insurance to all staff, stringers and associated personnel (Zaffar Abbas, Dawn Newspapers, Pakistan)

Signatories of the London Statement by members of the global media community on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, October 2012:-

African Editors Forum
Al Jazeera
Article 19
Association of Commercial Television in Europe
BBC Global News
Blue Dot Safety Training
Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI)
Centre for Freedom of the Media, University of Sheffield
City University, London
CNN
Colombo Telegraph, Sri Lanka
Commonwealth Journalists Association
Commonwealth Media Group
Commonwealth Press Union Trust
Daily Telegraph, UK
Dawn Newspaper, Pakistan
European Broadcasting Union
Federation of African Journalists
Frontline Club, London
Global Rolling News Live
Globo, Brazil
The Guardian, UK
Hurriyet Newspaper, Turkey
Index on Censorship
International News Safety Institute
International Press Institute
L Siglo de Torreon, Mexico
La Stampa Newspaper, Italy
Media Legal Defence Initiative
Philippines National Union of Journalists
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Rory Peck Trust
Sky News
Society of Editors, UK
Somali National Union of Journalists
Thomson Reuters
UNESCO IPDC Council – UK Representative Ivor Gaber
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
World Editors Forum

Signed in a personal capacity:

Dawood Azami, journalist and University of Westminster
Anabel Hernandez, Mexican journalist
Emin Milli, Azerbaijan writer
Hamid Mir, Geo TV presenter, Pakistan
Lorna Woods, Centre for Law Justice and Journalism, City University

The post Global media community condemns response to killing of journalists appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This year’s global Internet Governance Forum, where governments, industry and civil society join to discuss the future of the internet, will be held in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku from 6-9 November. Six months after Eurovision, it will give President Aliyev’s government another opportunity to present the mineral-rich state as a modern, outward looking country with investment opportunities for multinational corporations.

But the truth underneath Baku’s glitzy veneer is much darker. Azerbaijan is far from a democratic country: elections are not free or fair, journalists and civil society activists are consistently threatened with violence, harassment and imprisonment, and citizens’ access to independent, critical voices is severely limited.

The government has consistently made life difficult for investigative journalists and civil society activists who challenge government policy or interrogate business interests of the president’s family.

Recent arrests include that of Faramaz Novruzoglu, arrested on 23 August, who reported on government corruption. Novruzoglu, who also served prison sentences in 2007 and 2009, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment on charges of illegal border crossing and inciting public disorder.

Public disorder and “hooliganism” charges are used by the Azerbaijani authorities to silence dissent and critical reporting.The 2009 arrest of “donkey blogger” activists Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade was one of the country’s most prominent cases. As recently as 10 September, Araz Guliyev , who edits a website dealing with religious issues, was sentenced on hooliganism charges. On 13 June, photojournalist Mehman Huseynov was arrested on similar charges.

In April Index on Censorship award-winner Idrak Abbasov was brutally attacked by security guards working for Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil company SOCAR while reporting on the demolition of houses. Other journalists reporting on the incident were also attacked. The persecution of Abbasov and his family continues. As with so many attacks against journalists in the country, no one has been prosecuted for these acts of violence.

Imprisoned journalists also face intimidation and violence. Since his arrest in June 2012, Hilal Mammadov, editor-in-chief for Tolishi Sedo newspaper, has reported mistreatment and even torture. Mammadov faces life in prison on charges of high treason and inciting hatred.

In March, prominent investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova was the victim of a blackmail campaign. She received a collection of intimate photographs through the post, with a note warning her to “behave” or she would be “defamed”. Refusing to be silenced, Ismayilova — an important target not least because of her online activity — went public with the blackmail attempt. In retaliation, on 14 March an intimate video of Ismayilova filmed by a hidden camera was posted on the internet.

Ismayilova’s persecution sent a clear message to activists and independent journalists, further escalating the climate of fear that permeates much of Azerbaijani civil society today.

As in many countries, Azerbaijani civil society and independent journalism communities increasingly use the internet to galvanise change, spread vital information and news and discuss democratic and political change in the country.

Roughly a third of the country — according to some reports, 27 per cent of the population — has access to the internet. According to one report there are over 36,000 internet users in Azerbaijan, with official figures citing over 13,000 domain names registered with the “.az” suffix. But only 19 per cent have access to broadband, meaning that the internet, though increasingly important for disseminating information, is not the first port of call for most Azerbaijanis.

As independent media finds itself threatened with violence, intimidation and lawsuits and without advertising revenue, the internet has become an important source of independent news. Azerbaijan’s media environment suffered a significant blow in 2009, when the BBC, Voice Of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty were banned from using the country’s airwaves. Online Objectiv.tv has become a reliable resource for news that goes unreported in mainstream media: in recent months, it has regularly reported on property demolitions taking place as part of the process of “beautifying” Baku.

Citizen journalism has played a key role, with mobile phone footage being used to document demolitions. In early 2011, in the wake of widespread protests in the Middle East and North Africa, the government clamped down on activists who used social media to organise demonstrations calling for democratic reform and improved human rights.

Azerbaijan’s citizens are not only deprived of their right to free expression, but their right to access information is also consistently under threat. Although FOI is enshrined the country’s Law on the Right to Obtain Information, in July 2012 President Aliyev launched an attack against investigative journalists, campaigners and even potential business investors by signing in amendments to the corporate disclosure law.

In late August, the state-owned printing house informed Azadliq newspaper  that they would face eviction from their premises if they did not immediately pay a fee to them by early September. The paper now faces closure.

Defamation remains a criminal offence in Azerbaijan, despite repeated government claims that reforms are being considered. According to the Baku-based Media Rights Institute (MRI), in 2011, eight journalists were subject to criminal prosecution in defamation cases. This has led to widespread self-censorship in the country. MRI noted that the Yeni Musavat and Khural newspapers were the most frequent targets of these cases.

It’s clear that the Azerbaijani government and those close to it employ a huge range of tactics to silence critical voices, from intimidation and fabricated charges to clamping down on protest and blackmail.

Since President Aliyev came into power in 2003, a climate of impunity and a culture of self-censorship has ensued, making Azerbaijan a hostile environment for free expression and democracy.

Natasha Schmidt is Assistant Editor of Index on Censorship magazine. She tweets at @tasheschmidt

More on this story:

- Sign our petition calling for an end to impunity in Azerbaijan here

- Click here to learn more about freedoms under attack in Azerbaijan

- The International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan, of which Index is a member, has published a report on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan. Read it here

The post The truth about Azerbaijan appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Today Azerbaijani writer and activist Emin Milli met British parliamentarians to get their support for the petition, which calls on Aliyev end violations of free speech in Azerbaijan.

Emin Milli presenting the petition to Helen Goodman MP, Ian Liddell-Grainger MP and Grahame Morris MP, alongside Natasha Schmidt from Index on Censorship and Murad Gassanly from the Azerbaijan Democratic Association

A letter has now been sent to President Aliyev with the petition, co-signed by Index on Censorship, ARTICLE 19, Media Diversity Institute, Committee To Protect Journalists, Freedom House, Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Human Rights House Foundation and PEN International. It calls on the Azerbaijani president to:

• Ensure the protection of his citizens’ rights, particularly the rights to free expression and freedom of assembly

• End impunity for those who commit crimes against journalists, and allow media workers to go about their work without fear of violence or arrest

You can find more about the human rights situation on Index’s Meanwhile in Azerbaijan page, or on the IPGA website.

The post Azerbaijan anti-censorship petition goes to Houses of Parliament appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Mexico: Murdered journalist’s son requests protection for press appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Liberia: Journalist who reported on female genital mutilation forced into hiding appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Syria: Four citizen journalists killed despite ceasefire appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Nigeria: Gunmen kill cameraman appeared first on Index on Censorship.