17 May 2012 | Americas
Honduran radio journalist Ángel Alfredo Villatoro was found dead on Tuesday, 15 May, six days after he was kidnapped on his way to work at HRN Radio in the capital city of Tegucigalpa. The murder was a low blow for freedom of expression in this Central American nation. Just minutes before police reported locating a body dumped in a nearby neighbourhood, Honduran President Porfirio Lobo had raised hopes among media workers and family members, announcing government forces had received a video that showed the radio reporter was still alive. Villatoro was the last victim in a spiral of violence against media workers and institutions in Honduras. Twenty-two other journalists have been killed in Honduras in the last two years — four of them murdered in the last five months of this year.
Honduras is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous countries for journalists, up there with Mexico. The adverse conditions for the press in the country started in 2009 after a military coup against President Manuel Zelaya.
Two days ago, the National Commissioner for Human Rights Ramon Custodio, denounced what he claimed was an organised criminal and political network that preyed on the press and human rights defenders. A dozen journalists have also received death threats, according to Custodio.
The same day Villatoro was intercepted by gunmen, Erick Martinez Avila, another young reporter, was found killed. He was a journalist and gay activist. Freedom House has criticised Honduras for not investigating attacks against media workers.
16 May 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Former justice secretary Jack Straw has urged Parliament to amend the Human Rights Act to include a tort for breach of privacy.
“I think parliament needs to take this job on now,” Straw told the Leveson Inquiry today, adding that doing so would send a message to the public that they had “the right to have their privacy protected”.
Echoing his 2011 Gareth Williams memorial lecture, Straw said that legislating on privacy has gone “through a side door” by relying on the HRA. There is no current tort on privacy in English common law, though section 12 of the HRA says that a court must regard the extent to which a media defendant has complied with “any relevant privacy code”.
Straw, who was Home Secretary from 1997-2001 and Foreign Secretary from 2001-2006, also claimed self-regulation of the press had “palpably failed” and that regulation with statutory underpinning was the only means of compelling newspaper groups to join into a system.
“If you leave it to self-regulation we will end up with the absurd situation where they [the press] are judge and jury in their own courts,” Straw said, adding that the press “can’t go on claiming every other institution in the land needs external regulation” while it continues to regulate itself.
However he dismissed counsel Robert Jay QC’s suggestion of the possibility of state control in newspaper content as “nonsensical”.
Straw flagged newsroom culture as an area of concern, adding that the press needed to be “more examining of what they are doing” and that the Inquiry itself provided a “mirror” for journalists.
“With luck, there’ll be continuing momentum for change,” Straw said, contradicting former Downing Street spin doctor Alastair Campbell’s more pessimistic view that there was “no appetite” for media reform.
He accused the British press of being “Quixotic”, telling Leveson: “one day you’re best thing since sliced bread, next your paternity is being questioned by the same newspaper”.
He added that there was a degree of “voyeurism” among some sections of British journalism that took “no account of the responsibility of decision-making” and that there was a “willful refusal” by the press to develop an understanding of how governance works. “They reduce it so much to personality and conflict,” Straw said, adding that newspapers had contributed to a culture in which politics is seen as boring or pointless.
The Inquiry is currently focusing on relationships between the press and politicians, with Straw revealing that, during his time in the Cabinet (1997 to 2010), some newspapers were gradually “being favoured by particular ministers”.
“They had these little groups,” he said, adding that it was “very incestuous and very unhealthy” and that both sides were to blame.
Straw said one of the reasons the Blair government was too close to some of the press was because of its involvement with them during their time in opposition, a relationship it carried into Downing Street when it came to power in 1997.
“Every politician wants to have the best relationship they can with the press,” Straw said, but warned one’s own position becomes “compromised” and it could “undermine your integrity” if relationships are too close.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow, with evidence from former Sunday Times editor Sir Harry Evans and journalist Peter Oborne.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
15 May 2012 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features
The Russian feminist collective tells Index’s Elena Vlasenko they will continue to speak out, in spite of arrests and harassment
A Moscow court has confirmed the legality of the pre-trial detention of alleged Pussy Riot members Maria Alekhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Ekaterina Semutsevich.
The women had appealed against the Tagansky court decision detaining them until 24 June — when they will face a criminal trial on charges of hooliganism for allegedly staging an anti-Putin performance in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral in the run-up to recent presidential elections. But the court has turned down their appeal.
Two of the three accused Pussy Riot members are mothers of young children. The maximum sentence for their charges is seven years in prison.
Tolokonnikova, Alekhina and Samutsevich deny the allegations and are considered prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International and other leading human rights activists in Russia and abroad.
The women’s arrests triggered an emotional public discussion about the Orthodox church’s relationship with Russian authorities and society. Radical nationalist movement members have been preventing activists from protesting against Pussy Riot arrests. The Church, led by patriarch Kirill, who publically supports Vladimir Putin, performed a public prayer in April “against blasphemers”. Kirill’s support of the Pussy Riot prosecution has concerned many religious Russians, who have petitioned for the release of the women.
Pussy Riot members who have not yet been arrested are now in hiding and are difficult to reach. They gave this exclusive email interview to Index on Censorship.
– Did you expect these consequences — arrests, criminal proceedings, your supporters being beaten and insulted by radical nationalists — when you planned your cathedral performance? Would you repeat the performance if you knew how this would end?
– We didn’t expect the arrest. We are a women’s group which is forced to consume the ideas of patriarchal conservative society. We experience each process that happens in this society. Besides, we are a punk band, which can perform in any public place, especially one which is maintained through our taxes. That’s why we would definitely repeat our prayer. It was worth it: look at the awakened pluralism — political and religious!
– The state remains intolerant towards much artistic expression. What about broader Russian society?
– We are trying to educate society and will definitely take the importance of this process into account in our further actions. We expect people to at least look through Wikipedia after watching us on YouTube.
– What must you do now to avoid arrests?
– After Putin’s inauguration, just wearing a white ribbon on your clothes — a symbol of protest — has become a reason for arrest in Moscow. So we don’t wear them now.
– Will you continue performing? You said that anonymity helps you replace the band members in case they get arrested. Have many people offered to join you?
– Many people have expressed their wish to participate in our perfomances and we are planning them right now. We don’t consider the patriarch’s ignorant opinion and are not going to perform any protest songs against him personally.
– The Russian Orthodox church, according to notable human rights activists, has lost its right to establish moral standards after having severely condemned you, as did some intellectuals who preferred not to notice your persecution. Who, in your perspective, is likely to take their place?
– We think that one can learn moral values through literature, music and art, but definitely not in church. And as far as people are concerned, any human being who advocates humanistic ideas should support any prisoner who has lost her freedom because the authorities are afraid to give up their power.
15 May 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson has asked MPs not to interfere with his Inquiry, as he indicated he would take evidence from Adam Smith, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt’s special adviser, and News Corp PR chief Frederic Michel.
Leveson went through a lengthy reading of yesterday’s Hansard transcript, replying to the points of order raised in the House of Commons by Labour MPs who asked for Hunt to provide relevant material to the House before giving evidence to the Inquiry.
He responded firmly that this would “undermine the fairness of the procedure”, though he acknowledged he could not he could not stop Parliament from addressing such matters.
Smith resigned last month when it emerged in correspondence between Michel and Hunt’s office that News Corp was being given advance feedback of the government’s scrutiny of the BSkyB bid at a time when the media corporation was mounting a takeover bid of the satellite broadcaster. News Corp eventually abandoned the takeover bid in July 2011 in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.
The opposition has insisted that Hunt broke the ministerial code for failing to supervise Smith, a claim that Hunt, who has come under increasing fire for the liaisons between his office and News Corp, has denied.
Leveson stressed his determination to remain above party politics and that it was crucial to hear “every side of the story” before drawing conclusions. He repeated his stance that it was not up to him to adjudicate whether or not the House had been misled.
Hunt is also due to appear the Inquiry, which is currently examining relationships between the British press and politicians, before the end of the month.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
