The Economist New Media Award was presented to Psiphon at the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards on Tuesday 21 April.
You can listen to Nart Villeneuve of Psiphon explain how he helps people around the world to avoid censorship and surveillance here
Index on Censorship joined the US and UK media today in an application to the High Court in London, seeking the disclosure of evidence in the case of Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantanamo detainee. Last year, information outlining Binyam Mohamed’s treatment at the hands of US officials was redacted from a court judgment. Lawyers for the foreign secretary, David Miliband, had claimed that if the seven paragraphs containing the information were released, it would endanger the UK’s intelligence-sharing relationship with the US. However, Binyam Mohamed’s lawyer Dinah Rose QC argued today that the government’s representation had been ‘seriously misleading’. Although officials in the Bush administration had suggested last year that relations would be affected, it transpired that the Foreign Office had not in fact contacted the new US administration to ask if it held the same line. Rose described the failure of the foreign secretary to clarify the position as ‘indefensible’ and added that the basis on which the Public Interest Immunity certificate had been signed could no longer be sustained.
Following the publication of ‘the torture memos’ on 16 April, detailing the shocking interrogation tactics used on detainees, and President Obama’s call for transparency and accountability, Lord Justice Thomas said today that he was ‘baffled’ as to what objections the new administration might have to publishing the paragraphs.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, acting for Index on Censorship, Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, is also seeking the release of the 33-page closed judgment which considers 42 documents outlining Binyam Mohamed’s treatment while in custody in Pakistan. The hearing today raised profound and troubling questions about the manner in which the Foreign Office has conducted the case and the ambiguity of the arguments it has employed to keep the full story about Binyam Mohamed’s treatment out of the public domain.
Speaking at last night’s Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards, Chief Executive
John Kampfner outlined the plans, opportunities and challenges for Index on Censorship in the year ahead.
Two and a half decades in journalism took me to Berlin for the fall of the wall, to Russia for the collapse of Communism, to Rwanda for the terrible genocide. They also took me to Westminster for the likes of Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, and, yes, Damian McBride. One of the frustrations of that profession is that you talk about what other people do, but you rarely have the chance to do it yourself.
Free expression is under threat as never before. It goes to the core of civil liberties and to the health of civil society around the world.
Index on Censorship is a wonderful organisation, as many will attest. When Index on Censorship was founded the issue was much more black and white. Some states and systems were identified as abusers of free speech, others as promoters. Now the concerns are more variegated. Free speech is seen by some not as a bedrock of human rights, but as a challenge to them, for example on so-called ‘hate speech’. Restrictions are being imposed not just by authoritarian states but through self-censorship and democracies too.
I know it is invidious to pick out a few of our partners, but I want to thank our major funders — the Open Society Institute, Fritt Ord, the Arts Council and the Prince Claus Fund.
Our international and UK projects are led by Rohan Jayasekera with funding from different branches of the UN and EU, along with the foreign ministries and UK-based trusts, continue to be the benchmark for the most professional hands-on work to be found in the sector. A number of media lawyers have been doing invaluable campaigning with us on our current project, in conjunction with English PEN, to highlight the odious nature of libel law in this country.
Rohan and I will also be representing Index on Censorship at the Global Forum on Free Expression in Oslo in June and I have agreed with Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty that we will host a joint event in the autumn.
I’d like to pay tribute to Jonathan Dimbleby, who brought me onto Index on Censorship in September, and has shared our plans to modernise the organisation and increase its profile. We have an inspirational board of trustees, who do so much work behind the scenes. I’m delighted that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald QC, has agreed to join us.
Our website relaunches in May and is already attracting contributors like Bernard-Henri Levy, and Orlando Figes , among others. We invite contributions from people committed to civil liberties and free expression on all sides of the political spectrum. It is journalism, but it is much more than journalism.
Our ambition is clear: we want to ensure that Index on Censorship becomes, through the new website, magazine, events and other advocacy, the number one place, the hub, where people around the world turn to for intelligent, incisive work on free expression.
The purpose of last night’s Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards, indeed, the purpose of Index on Censorship, is to highlight the stories of people fighting for free expression around the world, and to ensure that free expression is at the heart of the discourse on rights and liberties.
In carrying out that task this year, we’ve been lucky to collaborate with the Guardian‘s Liberty Central site.
Liberty Central’s Natalie Hanman interviewed award nominee Harrison Nkomo, who explained the difficulty of uphold the rights to a free press, and proper legal processes. You can watch the interview here.
Bindman’s Law and Campaigning award winner Malik Imtiaz Sarwar wrote an article for the site, detailing his struggle in Malaysia, including the defence of Raja Petra Kamarudin of Malaysia Today.
And the top story today is Sir David Hare’s keynote speech from the event, where he admits to some initial scepticism about Index on Censorship (thankfully he then admits he was wrong!).
David Hare also raises his own misgivings on what we might call ‘free-speech abolutism’, saying: ‘I had misgivings about freedom of speech being made the sole criterion of a free society. I still do.’
It’s an interesting point. Free expression may not be the sole criterion of a free, and healthy society, but I think discussion is. Societies flounder and fail when discussion is shut down. As award winner Ma Jian put it in his speech last night, the end result of censorship (and perhaps the desired result of censorship) is stultification and stupefaction of individuals and society.
Liberty Central is a good embodiment of why free expression is important: we need free expression so we have the space to discuss all other rights, liberties and responsibilties — as happens on Liberty Central.