16 May 2007 | News and features
Zimbabwean security officers used brutal methods to disperse a peaceful march by approximately 100 members of the Law Society, including it’s president, Index on Censorship award winner Beatrice Mtetwa, outside the High Court in the capital Harare last Tuesday (May 8). The lawyers were protesting the refusal of the state to comply with two High Court orders requiring the release of the lawyers Andrew Makoni and Alec Muchadehama, who had been arrested the week before.
Mtetwa was taken away by the police, along with three of her colleagues who were also participating in the march. After being driven to the outskirts of Harare, the lawyers were forced to lie face-down on the ground before being beaten with rubber clubs. Mtetwa, a prominent Zimbabwean human rights lawyer who won the Index on Censorship Law Award in 2006, was treated in hospital following the beating.
Public demonstrations have been banned in Zimbabwe since February of this year. However, Mtetwa defended the legality of the protest, explaining the Law Society had served the police with notice of the demonstration a day in advance, as required by Zimbabwean law. Beatrice Mtetwa also stated that there is no law that requires police to approve a protest.
.
Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19, commented: “Beatrice Mtetwa is a close friend and advisor to ARTICLE 19 she continued and we fully support the Committee to Protect Journalists’ call for a full and transparent investigation into this blatant infringement of Beatrice’s human rights and those of her colleagues.”
Human rights defenders and journalists are often harassed by the Zimbabwean security forces acting on behalf of the government. Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly have been greatly curtailed during the recent political, economic and social deterioration within the country.
10 May 2007 | Comment
As Tony Blair announced his resignation, David Keogh and Leo O’Connor were sentenced for breaching the Official Secrets Act: convicted for revealing the contents of a conversation between the British Prime Minister and President George Bush about Iraq, which took place in 2004.
It is not possible to discuss the contents of the memo – not only were journalists and members of the public sent out of court when it was discussed, but the attorney general has ruled that the media cannot even repeat allegations about the memo which have already been published.
So an extraordinary, Kafkaesque chain of secrecy remains in place, protecting Tony Blair from immense potential embarrassment on the day he announces the end of his era. He may not wish his legacy to be marred or dominated by Iraq, especially as he announces his departure, but the timing of the trial has spoilt any chance of that.
Government employees do not blow the whistle lightly. David Keogh was a communications officer. He said that he acted out of conscience and thought that the document revealed Bush as a ‘madman’. Keogh copied the memo to Leo O’Connor, who was a researcher for the MP Anthony Clarke.
Keogh’s aim was for it to be discussed in the Commons and to be read by John Kerry, the US presidential candidate. However, O’Connor passed the memo to Clarke who then alerted Downing Street. The memo, in fact, made a very short journey.
The prosecution claimed that the release of the document could have endangered lives, but conceded that the leak did not constitute ‘actual damage’. Tony Blair’s foreign policy adviser Sir Nigel Sheinwald said it would have sparked international tensions. David Keogh’s barrister insisted that there was nothing in the memo which would have put British troops at risk.
The contents of the memo are in the public interest – but no such defence exists for whistleblowers. In 1989, the Labour Party had argued for the introduction of a public interest defence in the Official Secrets Act, but once in power, New Labour showed little sign of pushing for such a change.
In fact, it has shown itself quick to use the OSA wherever necessary to protect its own interests. Sir Nigel Sheinwald told the jury that conversations between political leaders should remain confidential – even if the content was immoral or illegal.
Al-Jazeera, meanwhile, is applying for the release of the memo through the Freedom of Information Act. So the story is not over yet – but a leader who once called for more open government has marked the end of his tenure in a veil of secrecy.
10 May 2007 | Comment
On the face of it, the move of First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo to drop the 16 libel cases he has filed against 46 journalists is laudable. Many have praised Mr. Arroyo for his change of heart.
I do, too—but only up to a point.
Let’s look deeper. The First Gentleman – husband of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the current President of the Philippines – for all his religious rhetoric, made the U-turn for reasons of self-interest. Definitely, I don’t take that against him.
The stress of appearing in court and undergoing cross-examination can take its toll. It was his choice to testify in the hearings to show how serious he was in pursuing the cases. Now, his fragile health has stopped him.
But, in making his decision to withdraw the libel suits, the First Gentleman steered clear of the real issues. He set his terms on a religious plane, invoking God. This provides him personal comfort and he aims to rally public opinion as well.
He said in a statement, “I am determined to keep in touch with the God that has been magnanimous to me, and to let His spirit of generosity steer me through any future conflicts.”
He continued: “Seeking redress for all the grievances that the libel suits sought to address now pales in comparison to taking on a genuine chance to make peace and pursue a more positive and constructive relationship with those who will accept my offer of a handshake.”
In a predominantly Catholic country like ours, this tends to sit well with those who look at the issue as one of forgiveness and reconciliation. Questions from fellow journalists have been instructive for me in this regard.
One radio reporter asked me during an interview, right after the Palace announced on World Press Freedom Day (May 3) that Mr. Arroyo was dropping the cases, if I was now willing to reconcile with the First Gentleman. (Newsbreak was sued by Mr. Arroyo twice.).
Before he asked the question, I told him that we would have preferred that our cases be decided in the courts, on their merits. The issue, I pointed out, does not rest on one man’s magnanimity or well-being.
I thought hard about it and I’ve never looked at journalism in terms of making nice with people. Our job is not to make friends or enemies. It is to tell the truth. In the process, some get hurt, others are angered.
But that’s part of the territory—and we learn to live with it as long as we know that we are accurate, fair, honest, and we observe ethical conduct.
In another interview, a reporter said that I may be seen as harassing a sick person by choosing to pursue the cases. It struck me that standing one’s ground and seeking justice can be seen in such personal terms.
He also pointedly asked me if I wasn’t being hypocritical. Why, he argued, did we strongly protest Mr. Arroyo’s filing of the libel cases and now that he is withdrawing them, we’re being belligerent.
Journalists who file stories on a daily basis usually forget the context. I reminded him that we’ve always taken the position that the First Gentleman, by whimsically filing libel cases, has redefined libel. He no longer used it as a legitimate means to seek redress but as a tool of the powerful meant to intimidate and silence journalists.
In the history of Philippine media, it is Mr. Arroyo who has filed the most number of libel cases versus journalists. During their terms, former Presidents Corazon Aquino and Joseph Estrada filed only one libel case each.
Thus, the heart of our argument is: Mr. Arroyo is out to erode the watchdog function of the press. That is anathema in a democracy.
We’re trying to build the press as an institution that will function vigorously as part of the checks and balances in our system. As it is, we already operate in difficult conditions, where vested interests dominate some media organizations and the culture of impunity casts its dark shadow on us.
Sadly, that’s the paradox of the Philippine media. Our case dispels the myth that just because we’re the freest press in Southeast Asia and one of the oldest democracies in this part of the world, we’re doing well.
And today, we face a new battleground—in the courts.
(more…)
8 May 2007 | News and features
Freedom House’s annual report Freedom of the Press, released last month, caused an outcry over the state of local media in Russia. Freedom House, a leading American civil rights watch-dog, put Russia on 164th place among 195 countries, and named the country “Not Free”. International press-freedom groups supported this evaluation: according to New-York based Committee to Protect Journalists, Russia is the second most dangerous country for journalists; Reporters without borders say that this country is 147th among 168 states, in terms of press freedom.
On 3 May, Koïchiro Matsuura, UNESCO’s Director-General, accused Russian authorities for the growing number of journalists’ murders and impunity, in the conference speech in Medellin, Colombia. Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe released an accusatory statement on human rights suppression in Russia, highlighting the unsolved murder of the prominent journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
In response, the local officials and pro-Kremlin experts are persistently reminding that Russian journalists and authorities do not need any evaluation from the outside world to serve the public’s needs.
On the same day, Elena Zelinskaya, the vice-president of Media Union, (a Russian NGO uniting and supporting local media companies), and deputy chair at the Public Chamber’s Committee for Communications, Information Policies and Press Freedom, told the independent radio station Ekho Moskvy about a new project, Index of Press Freedom. The Russian Public Chamber and Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) will study the situation in the local media. The project participants are still to define the methods for this research, but Zelinskaya mentioned the economical level of each Russian region, the quality of journalists’ education, and regional practice of the rule of law as the criteria for such evaluation. ‘It seems to us that the evaluations that any foreign organization offers, are mostly based on the opinions… the experts’ views,’ Zelinskaya says. ‘We would like to use facts for our analysis. Our task is to understand what is going on in our country.’ According to Zelinskaya, the Public Chamber must ‘control’ press freedom in Russia, and the project aims to reveal the factors that influence freedom in media.
Anatly Kucherena, the chairman of Public Chamber’s Committee for Public Control over the law enforcement agencies, and the leader of Civil Society public movement, told Russian newspaper Kommersant daily that on Monday, May 7, he would send papers to Brussels for registering the new Association of human rights organisations. Human rights activists from Belgium, Germany, Austria, Italy, USA will participate in this association, which ‘will monitor civil freedoms in the West and prepare ratings, similar to those, where Russia is represented as an outsider.’
Denis Dragunsky, the editor of political journal Kosmopolis, says: ‘Russian press is obviously less free then in Finland and Sweden, for instance, but Russia is a European country, observing human rights and freedoms.’
Boris Reznik, the deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee for Informational Policies, told the local media that he was sceptical ‘such ratings’. ‘It is not clear what criteria are used for these reports,’ Reznik said. ‘At the same time, we should recognize that we are not totally successful in press freedom development. But the question is whether the journalists themselves need freedom. Today many media companies refuse to be free voluntarily. It is easier for them to be obedient.’
The majority of Russian journalists though believe that the local media is heavily censored. The Guild of Press Publishers, a nonprofit partnership of Russian publishers of printed media and industry suppliers, conducted a survey titled Media Market and the Prospects of Civil Society in Russia, which showed that around 70% of Russian journalists recognize the fact of censorship of the local media. Initially, the research aimed to prove that since Perestroika (Mikhail Gorbachev’s liberal reforms) started, Russian media transformed from propaganda into the true reporting, but the polls do not support this hypothesis. Virtually all Russian journalists deny the existence of press freedom in Russia. As for the public, only 27% of Russian citizens trust local media.
(more…)
