“There has been a decline in some aspects of governance, political participation, and media freedoms, and a clear deterioration in attitudes associated with, or conducive to, democracy in many countries, including in Europe.” 

The EIU measures how democratic countries are based on five categories: “electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture”. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark have topped this year’s list, which ranks 165 countries and two territories. Even though half of the global population live “in a democracy of some sort”, the EIU reports that previous gains in democratisation have been eroded in the past few years.

The global financial crisis has aggravated this decline, and this can be felt in many parts of the world. According to the EIU, the economic crisis has been a double-edged sword:  in some ways it can “undermine authoritarianism”, but it can also help reinforce it. While in some cases the economic crisis has emboldened protesters — it has also left governments feeling “vulnerable and threatened”, which has meant a rise in attempts to restrict freedom of expression and control the media.

This isn’t restricted to more authoritarian countries. The report notes a “noticeable decline in media freedoms, affecting all regions to some extent, has accelerated since 2008.” A rise in unemployment and a lack of job security has helped create a “climate of fear and self-censorship among journalists in many countries.”

Perhaps challenges in Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa — particularly in younger democracies, are no surprise. But there have been some startling changes in more well-established democracies. Developed western countries have seen a decline in political participation, as well as restrictions on civil liberties in the name of security.

The report shows a troubling situation in Europe, as confidence in the region’s public institutions continues to drop. In Eastern Europe, the scores of ten countries have declined. The scores of Western European countries since 2008 have shown the impact of the economic crisis. Out of 21 countries, 15 have had a decrease in their scores between 2008 and 2010. 

The United Kingdom moved up from a score of 18 to 16 this year. The EIU pins the UK’s score on a “deep institutional crisis”, and says that trust in the government is “at an all-time low.” The United States, on the other hand, moved down from 19 to 21 this year, as the report says that the country’s democracy “has been adversely affected by a deepening of the polarisation of the political scene and political brinkmanship and paralysis.”

If the Democracy Index tells us anything, it’s that the economic crisis definitely plays a role in how healthy a democracy is.  The United Nation’s International Labour Office now predicts that youth unemployment will only continue to rise in the next five years — estimating that today’s youth will be approximately “three times more likely than adults” to face unemployment. At the start of the year, the World Bank predicted an “uncertain future” for the global economy; with limited growth in the coming years. As countries scramble to cope with economic woes, I think that this report is an important reminder that we shouldn’t lose sight of freedom of expression.

The post Economist report sees democracy under siege appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Cartoonist Kamal Sharaf shows Shaye locked up while US Ambassador to Yemen Gerald Feierstein looks on holding the keys. The text says: Freedom for the Journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye

Yemeni journalist Abdul-Elah Haidar Shaye, imprisoned in Sana’a since August 2010, is set to be released “soon”, according to a new presidential order. But this is not the first time a Yemeni president has pledged to set him free.

Shaye, sentenced in January 2011 to five years in prison for allegedly being a “media man for al-Qaeda’, should have walked free a month later. Weeks after his sentence was handed down in the Special Criminal Court for Security Affairs, then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh issued a pardon for his release. But a day later Washington stepped in. In a phone call between Barack Obama and his Yemeni counterpart, the US president “expressed concern” over Shaye’s impending release. The presidential pardon was never carried out. Shaye has remained in the capital’s notorious Political Security prison ever since.

On Tuesday night the office of Saleh’s sucessor, President Hadi confirmed that “there is an order from the president to release him [Shaye] soon”, without elaborating on when this is likely to happen. Shaye’s family remain sceptical about the order that was given about a week ago. “We’ve heard nothing of the sort and it’s like the same as previous promises. So far this is the fourth time Hadi has made this promise,” said Shaye’s brother, Khaled.

During his trial — at which the journalist turned down legal representation as he refused acknowledge the legitimacy of the court — Shaye indicated the real reason behind his detention was his reporting on US strikes and specifically the deaths of civilians including 14 women and 21 children killed in a sea-launched cruise missile strike on the village of al-Majala in December 2009.  Despite the Yemeni government claiming they were responsible for destroying an “al-Qaeda training camp” Shaye blamed the killings on America after visiting the village in the province of Abyan and finding US made bomb remnants.

Seven months after the al-Majala bombing and following his criticism of both the Yemeni and US Governments, Shaye was abducted by Political Security Organisation [PSO] gunmen. Beaten and threatened before being released, in response Shaye went back on television. A month later, in August 2010, his house was raided by Yemen’s elite US-trained and funded Counter Terrorism troops. Shaye was once again beaten and tortured, according to the Yemeni human rights organisation HOOD, during 34 days in solitary confinement with no access to a lawyer or family members.

In an October 2010 court hearing, after more than two hours of the prosecution presenting its case, Shaye was allowed just a few minutes to respond. In those moments he suggested what he believes is the real motive behind his incarceration. “When they hid murderers of children and women in Abyan, when I revealed the locations…it was on that day they decided to arrest me,” he shouted from behind the bars of cell alongside the courtroom.

Leaked diplomatic cables released shortly after after the conclusion of his trial confirmed Sahye’s accusations that the US had indeed carried out the al-Majala bombing.

In an interview last year with the US Ambassador to Sana’a, Gerald Feierstein reiterated to me America’s interest in his case. “Haidar Shaye is in jail because he was facilitating al-Qaeda and its planning for attacks on Americans and therefore we have a very direct interest in his case and his imprisonment,” he said. No evidence has ever been produced by either the US or Yemeni Government to support the claim that Shaye was facilitating any such attacks.

Yemeni journalists have repeatedly expressed their lingering fear over America’s meddling in Shaye’s case. Many became afraid to report on air strikes. One Yemeni journalist, like Shaye a specialist on al-Qaeda, renamed himself an “analyst of Islamic groups” and refused to do TV interviews especially with Al Jazeera after what happened to Shaye.

Since Shaye’s imprisonment in 2010 the US resumed its drone strike programme in Yemen during 2011, following a year-long break. Last year the number of strikes reached an all-time high, surpassing the number carried in Pakistan for the first time, according to monitoring groups.

In February last year Shaye went on hunger strike, but was persuaded by his family to halt the protest at his continued detention when his health rapidly deteriorated.

Human rights and press freedom organisations have continued to demand his release. On World Press Freedom Day last week the International Federation of Journalists [IFJ] reiterated its call for an end to his incarceration in a letter to the Yemeni president. In a meeting with IFJ president Jim Boumelha last year Hadi had promised to do “everything in his power” to free Shaye.

It’s unclear if this most recent order will be carried out, or if Washington will once again seek to keep Shaye behind bars.

The US Embassy in Sana’a failed to respond to requests for comment on the presidential release order.

Iona Craig is a freelance journalist based in Sana’a, Yemen and The Times of London Yemen Correspondent. She also writes for USA Today, The Sunday Times and regularly contributes to The National (UAE) and Index on Censorship
ionacraig.tumblr.com

The post Will Obama keep Yemeni journalist in jail? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Today’s impressively short Queen’s Speech contained two nuggets of interest for Index readers. Firstly, there was the mention of intellectual propety:

A further Bill will make it easier for businesses to protect their intellectual property

The debate over copyright and free speech has been fraught, with widespread criticism of governmental attempts to create laws on copyright on the web. (Read Brian Pellot on World Intellectual Property Day here here and Joe McNamee’s “Getting Copyright Right” here.)

This is something the government will have to treat very carefully, and the consultation should be fascinating.

Further in, the speech addressed crime in cyberspace:

In relation to the problem of matching internet protocol addresses, my government will bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace.

Here’s more detail from the background briefing:

The Government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to protect the public and ensure national security. These agencies use communications data – the who, when, where and how of a communication, but not its content – to investigate and prosecute serious crimes. Communications data helps to keep the public safe: it is used by the police to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and to save lives. This is not about indiscriminately accessing internet data of innocent members of the public.

As the way in which we communicate changes, the data needed by the police is no longer always available. While they can, where necessary and proportionate to do so as part of a specific criminal investigation, identify who has made a telephone call (or
sent an SMS text message), and when and where, they cannot always do the same for communications sent over the internet, such as email, internet telephony or instant messaging. This is because communications service providers do not retain
all the relevant data.

When communicating over the Internet, people are allocated an Internet Protocol (IP) address. However, these addresses are generally shared between a number of people. In order to know who has actually sent an email or made a Skype call, the
police need to know who used a certain IP address at a given point in time. Without this, if a suspect used the internet to communicate instead of making a phone call, it may not be possible for the police to identify them.

The Government is looking at ways of addressing this issue with CSPs. It may involve legislation.

Eagle-eyed observers will note that this echoes what Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told LBC listeners on 25 April, after announcing that the dreaded Communications Data Bill (aka the “Snooper’s Charter”) was to be dropped. Clegg suggested then that IP addresses could be assigned to each individual device.

As I wrote at the time, “New proposals for monitoring and surveillance will no doubt emerge, and will be subject to the same scrutiny and criticism as the previous attempts to establish a Snooper’s Charter.”

Well, here we are.

Padraig Reidy is senior writer for Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy

The post The Queen’s speech and free speech appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The Right2Know campaign has been working against the bill since its introduction in 2010, and has vowed to continue fighting against the bill, which now must be signed by Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president, in order to go into effect. Although the bill was amended last year to include a clause on public interest, the campaign says that the modified bill still “only has narrow protection for whistleblowers and public advocates”. Right2Know also criticised the bill’s vague language — which they say could possibly endanger whistleblowers and journalists.

Writing for Index on Censorship last year, Nobel laureate Nadine Gordimer said that the bill “must be discarded in its entirety.”

More on this story:

Nadine Gordminer: Let the truth be told

South Africa’s Secrecy Bill: A threat to press freedom or an awakening?

The post South African parliament passes ‘secrecy bill’ appeared first on Index on Censorship.

After the story was published on 8 April, the newspaper was immediately the hit with a cyber attack, according to El Periodico’s publisher, José Rubén Zamora. The website went dead and nobody could read the story for a few days. Readers who did manage to access the website had their computers infected with a virus. The attack was the latest salvo against the daily, which focuses on exposing government corruption. Zamora said it was the sixth attack against its website in the last year. He said each attack had occurred after the newspaper published investigations into corruption in Molina’s government. Zamora said that they have been investigating the attacks — which have been coming from a neighbourhood in Guatemala City. “We will pinpoint the exact area soon”, he said. The Inter American Press Association wrote a letter to Guatemala’s government expressing their concern over the attacks.

According to Zamora, officials have pulled government advertising from the newspaper, and constantly harass independent advertisers who work with the daily. In the last two decades, Zamora has been at the helm of two newspapers. His first paper was Siglo Veintuno, which he left after disagreeing with his co-owners over the paper’s robust coverage of corruption and government abuses. He has been target of kidnappings and death threats, and even had his home invaded by armed men in 2003, who held his wife and three sons hostage for several hours at gunpoint. Zamora won the Committee to Protect Journalists Freedom of the Press award in 1995, and in 2000 was named World Press Freedom Hero by the International Press Institute.

I asked Zamora why he continues to put his life in danger with government exposés:

Ana Arana: You knew the danger with this story, why did you want to publish it?

José Rubén Zamora: It is indispensable to stop the corruption and self-enrichment by the Guatemalan political class. They forget that our country is overwhelmed by misery, malnourished children, and racism. Guatemala is a country without counterweights or institutional balances to protect it from abuses. That is why to write about these stories is our obligation. If we did not focus on these issues, why should we exist?

Our stories are written so Guatemalans get strong and do not accept abuses of those in power. We also do it to get information on corrupt practices and human rights violations in Guatemala out in the international community.

AA: What is the real problem in Guatemala?

JRZ: I think there is an excessive concentration of power and money, and a serious penetration of organised crime, especially drug trafficking organisations, in  spheres of power.

AA: Do you fear any further attacks against the newspaper?

JRZ: Yes, I expect them to harass us through taxes, and to engage in defamation campaigns to discredit the newspaper. Sources close to the Presidency have said that the government is trying to organised a commercial boycott that could take the newspaper towards bankruptcy.

The post Guatemalan newspaper faces cyber attacks after exposing corruption appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Speaking on his regular “Call Clegg” slot on London’s LBC radio, Clegg told presenter Nick Ferrari that the government would not pass a law allowing authorities to monitor individuals’ web traffic, describing the idea as neither “workable” nor “proportionate”.

(Watch at 19 minutes)

Clegg went on to suggest that a “middle way” could be found, possibly including the assignment of an IP address to each web-enabled device, to allow police to “do their job”.

This would appear to be a victory for the many, including Index on Censorship, who expressed concerns over the sweeping powers proposed in the Communications Data Bill. In an August 2012 policy note, Index said:

Population-wide collection and filtering of communications data is neither necessary nor proportionate. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly and in a chilling manner on freedom of expression, inhibiting and restricting individuals in how they receive, share and impart information and encouraging self-censorship.

So we will celebrate the apparent end of the Communications Data Bill in its current form. But it is clear from Clegg’s words, and those of his Conservative coalition partners including Home Secretary Theresa May, that this is not an issue that will be dropped.

New proposals for monitoring and surveillance will no doubt emerge, and will be subject to the same scrutiny and criticism as the previous attempts to establish a Snooper’s Charter.

Padraig Reidy is Senior Writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy

The post Nick Clegg kills Snooper’s Charter – for now appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The creation of this new law has not been an easy process. The Libel Reform Campaign launched on 9 December 2009, bringing together Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. We had all identified a simple problem: English libel laws were silencing legitimate criticism and debate — not just in the UK but internationally. London’s High Court was seen as the place to come to silence opponents and critics, whether you were a South African snake-oil salesman or a Saudi sheikh.

Each organisation had already been alarmed by the use of libel laws in England and Wales to silence free speech.

The movement galvanised around the case of Simon Singh vs the British Chiropractic Association. This case, involving the popular science writer’s critique of what he now famously described as the “bogus” claims of alternative medicine, brought the UK’s energetic sceptic community into the fold. Over 100 civil society groups signed up. Novelists, journalists, lawyers and comics — especially comics — also joined. At the same time, English PEN and Index on Censorship had been working on a year-long study on the effects of English libel law on chilling free speech at home and across the globe. The Free Speech For Sale report kicked off a national debate on the impact of these archaic laws.

In March 2010, some of the biggest names in comedy, including Shappi Khorsandi, Tim Minchin and Dara Ó Briain gave their time to perform at the Big Libel Gig fundraiser in London.

An awful lot has happened since that benefit gig. Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, a serial libel tourist, has died. Mr Justice Eady, the High Court judge at the centre of some of the most contentious libel cases of recent times, has retired. Barack Obama signed the SPEECH Act, a US law specifically designed to protect Americans from London libel rulings. And the Chiropractics lost their case against Singh.

But what did not change was the remarkable loyal support of the thousands of libel reform supporters at home and abroad.

In advance of the 2010 UK election, tens of thousands of people wrote to their MPs telling them to support reform of the libel laws. As a result, all three main parties in the UK pledged to change the law.

When the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government was formed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg after that election, a new defamation bill was one of the few issues both parties agreed on.

It would have been easy then for the 60,000 libel reform supporters to feel that their job had been done, and that now it could be left to the politicians.

But this never happened. Every time there was even a slightest threat to the process of reform, supporters mobilised, often without prompting.

The Libel Reform campaign can be seen, perhaps, as the first successful political campaign of the social media age. Bloggers and tweeters got involved and stayed involved. The #LibelReform hashtag was never dormant.

It was also a good example of parliamentary policy making. Though at times progress seemed slow, the bill went through rounds of scrutiny in an open and transparent manner, with politicians (for the most part!) working together for the common good.

The new law protects free speech. There is a hurdle to stop vexatious cases. We now have a bar on libel tourism so non-EU claimants will now need to prove that harm has been done here. For the first time there will be a statutory public interest defence that will ask defendants to prove they have acted “reasonably” (a better test than the more burdensome Reynold’s test of responsible publication). There is also a hurdle to stop corporations from suing unless they can prove financial harm.

The fight for free speech continues, but today Index would like to thank our partners and supporters for what has been an incredible three-and-a-half-year adventure.

Padraig Reidy is Senior Writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy

The post Victory for free speech as libel bill passes appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Akram Elsadawie | Demotix

Free speech in Libya has been transformed in a relatively short period. The initial boom of diverse independent media outlets has been hailed by many observers as one of the major achievements of the Libyan uprising after decades of oppression on the freedom of ordinary people to voice their opinion and dissent.

However the initial euphoria gave way to frustration. It became apparent that developing laws and regulations that achieve the balance between freedom of speech and defamation will not be an easy task. Newly drawn restrictions to freedom when dealing with militant and fundamentalist armed groups and the religious establishment, combined with lawlessness of many parts of the country, is hindering the development of the concept of freedom of speech in post-revolutionary Libya.

In Gaddafi’s Libya, it was difficult for writers and journalists to work and publish outside the state-owned media outlets. Journalists faced banning, harassment, imprisonment, torture and death. Even when the regime attempted to improve its image, through Gaddafi’s son Saif-Islam, in what was dubbed the “Libya Tomorrow” project, the scope of freedom of expression didn’t go beyond criticising some corrupt state officials.

During the uprising independent media outlets became mostly synonymous with “resistance journalism” which focused mainly on rallying the people against the regime and documenting the many violations committed by Gaddafi loyalists.

The ability to write and publish without prior approval or censorship in newspapers, magazines, websites, or on social media was a huge leap for many writers and journalists.

The Libyan uprising produced, for the first time in many decades, hundreds of media outlets free from state control or official censorship. The state regulator and censor that was inherited from the Gaddafi era, and is yet to be dissolved, became an obsolete relic of a bygone age of oppression and censorship.

After the revolutionary fervour settled, and with the country entering a new era of rebuilding and establishing its state institutions, independent newspapers and publications found that adjusting to the new reality of post-revolution Libya wasn’t an easy task.

Many faced closure either because of lack of funding or a lack of professionally experienced journalists and writers to fill their pages, while dozens of television and radio channels found it difficult to attract audience with only revolutionary programming of discussion shows and nationalist songs, as is the case of the two state owned television channels, Al-Wataniya, and Al-Rasmiya that continue to fill their slots with irrelevant talk shows.

Protecting the rights of individuals to express their opinions peacefully and freely faced a challenge when the former National Transitional Council, bowing to pressure from certain exclusionary elements in the country, issued Law 37 to criminalise any “insult to the Libyan people and its institutions”, or glorifying Gaddafi and his regime, or any action that may harm the “Revolution” or Islam, was revoked by the Libyan supreme court and deemed unconstitutional, a decision that was supported and welcomed by many observers of freedom both inside and outside Libya.

In the post-uprising reality, newspapers and television channels that dared investigate claims of corruption and human rights violations, committed mostly by rogue militant and fundamentalist armed groups, face violent attacks; television channels have been vandalised, journalists kidnapped and tortured, or forced into silence or exile, and in some cases imprisoned and prosecuted under Gaddafi-era laws, as in the case of Amara al-Khatabi, who is accused of defaming Libyan judiciary after his newspaper published a list of judges it said were involved in corruption.

The other major challenge is enshrining freedom of expression in the constitution and protecting this right with laws that respect the rights of journalists and writers to report without fear. This could only begin by abolishing all Gaddafi era laws that infringe freedom of speech, some of which are still being used. It is expected that the long awaited constitution would protect freedom of expression and the rights of journalists and writers, and the arduous process of writing this constitution has begun with the members of the national congress (Parliament) to directly elect a 60 member constitutional committee that will be given the task of preparing the document, and is expected to be ready for a general referendum mostly by early 2014.

An official at the Libyan Ministry of Culture told me that the current government is aware of this problem and how old laws are being used to censor, ban and confiscate books, newspapers and other printed materials. But he said that changing these laws is not a priority as the government struggles to build state institutions from scratch.

The internet in general and social media in particular played an important role during the revolution, and it is still considered a major player in consolidating freedom of expression gains, and has so far not been censored or hindered except by its infra-structure which needs to be improved so it can reach more people in the country.

With the number of Facebook users in Libya approaching one million (862,060 according to Social Bakers, as of April 2013) many Libyans, are exercising their rights to criticise and debate any issues or figures in the government or other political elements, though some might argue that the lack of professionalism and accountability in social media is causing more harm than good, by spreading rumours and malicious reporting.

Libya ranked 131st in the World Press Freedom Index 2013, making the most gains in freedom compared to its Arab uprising neighbours, Tunisia and Egypt.

But the challenges ahead are daunting and the concerns that those gains can be lost are real.

Ghazi Gheblawi is a Libyan blogger, activist, author, and physician. He tweets from @Gheblawi

The post Free speech in post-Gaddafi Libya appeared first on Index on Censorship.

UPDATE: This, from the DCMS website, is also a little confusing:

Despite not falling under the definition of relevant publisher, any publication that is exempt as a micro-business as a result of these amendments could still choose to join a regulator and receive the legal benefits otherwise only available to relevant publishers in the regulator. That means protection from exemplary damages.

If you’re exempt as a “micro-business”, aren’t you supposed to be protected from exemplary damages anyway?

The post Leveson: Who’s in? Who’s out? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The £1.8 million plan — known as “the Snooper’s Charter” by opponents — would require that all telecommunications companies monitor the phone, e-mail, and web usage of citizens. Index has previously called the draft bill “unacceptable”, and said last year that “the decisions the UK Parliament takes on this bill will impact on human rights both in the UK and beyond, not least in authoritarian states.”

Write to your MP to and let them know that the bill should be dropped.

Plus read Index on Censorship on the Communications Data Bill

The post UK “Snooper’s Charter” should be dropped appeared first on Index on Censorship.