19 Jan 2012 | Uncategorized
With grim symmetry, French politicians are preparing to debate a law criminalising denial of the Armenian genocide just five years after the murder of Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink.
Dink, editor of Agos was passionately opposed to laws restricting discussion of what happened to thousands of Armenians in 1915. In Turkey, it was illegal for him to describe the events as genocide. In France, they hoped to make it illegal to say it was not. When this law was first mooted in 2006, Dink commented:
“When this bill appeared first, we were fast to declare as a group that it would lead to bad results…As you know, I have been tried in Turkey for saying the Armenian genocide exists, and I have talked about how wrong this is. But at the same time, I cannot accept that in France you could possibly now be tried for denying the Armenian genocide. If this bill becomes law, I will be among the first to head for France and break the law. Then we can watch both the Turkish Republic and the French government race against eachother to condemn me. We can watch to see which will throw me into jail first…I really think that France, if it makes this bill law, will be hurting not only the EU, but Armenians across the world. It will also damage the normalising of relations between Armenia and Turkey. What the peoples of these two countries need is dialogue, and all these laws do is harm such dialogue.”
Genocide denial is not a simple issue of differing versions of history; it is a calculated insult, a degeneration of a people’s memory and history. Ultimately, it is calculated to exterminate a people by other means. As novelist Howard Jacobson put it in a magazine in 2009, addressing attempts to downplay or deny the Jewish Holocaust:
“[O]ne day, if they have their way, whoever they are, these people, there will be no Holocaust either. No Holocaust. No Israel. No Jews.”
A similar impulse is at play with the use of Turkey’s Article 301, which outlaws “insulting Turkishness”. The law is used against Kurds and Armenians, because in the Kemalist vision that shaped the country, there are no Kurds or Armenians. There are only Turks, united in a single vision and a single story.
This impulse is unexceptional, particularly in 20th century nationalism. As empire disintegrated, projecting a single vision became important. In this way, Turkish “genocide denial” may be different from Holocaust denial, driven by fierce nationalism alone, rather than the combination of nationalism, classic and modern anti-Semitism and paranoid conspiracism which drove the Holocaust. But both are driven by distrust of the other, and by seeing diversity and cosmopolitanism as stumbling blocks on the path to perfection.
But while the two may differ, there is no difference in the free speech argument on laws covering them. Proscribing speech —whether it confirms or denys historical truths — is an offence to history, a barrier to dialogue and an insult to memory.
19 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Crossposted at Hacked Off
After two years of foot-dragging, nit-picking, hair-splitting and general obfuscation, News International has finally done the right thing in the civil litigation about phone hacking. It has put its hands up and agreed to compensate all but a few of the remaining victims who were suing it.
So this is a moment to pay tribute to all of those civil litigants, famous and obscure. We should honour them for their courage in challenging not only the might of Rupert Murdoch’s company, but the whole tabloid press, which was so eager to help keep Murdoch’s dirty linen hidden. And we should also honour them for prising open this huge can of worms when the entire establishment was determined to keep it shut.
There is talk of a new royal yacht for the queen’s diamond jubilee; perhaps before 2012 is out we should also have a handsome monument to the civil litigants as a gesture of thanks from a grateful nation. It could take the form of a giant tin-opener, and a location in Fleet Street might be appropriate.
These people changed everything. Without them the “one rogue reporter” lie would probably still be the official line from both News International and the Metropolitan Police. Rebekah Brooks would still be in her job, the ghastly Colin Myler would be editing the News of the World, Andy Coulson would be in 10 Downing Street and the press would still be telling us the PCC was an effective regulator.
A whole industry of deception, in other words, has crumbled thanks to the people compensated today and thanks to their predecessors who settled earlier, notably Sienna Miller.
And pathetic though News International’s legal defence has been lately, suing was never easy for the claimants. Think of the risks they exposed themselves to.
Back in 2010 when many of these cases began life, every politician knew that the Sun and the News of the World could wreck their reputations, and that these papers had more access to the prime minister (and his two predecessors) than any backbencher and most ministers. Suing probably looked like political suicide to most MPs.
Across television, cinema and sport, from Hollywood to India, News Corporation owns or controls far more than any other company, so if you were an actress, a sportsman, a football agent or a PR person you risked much more than your time and money by suing — you risked your livelihood.
As for ordinary people whose phones had been hacked, you might think they had nothing to lose by suing, but think again: this is a company that employed private investigators on an industrial scale. Would you be happy to have every aspect of your private life secretly investigated, and if the slightest blemish was found — perhaps involving a vulnerable relative — to have that exposed in the press?
So it took courage for these people to sue, and collectively they made the difference between News International escaping scot free and what we have now: substantial police investigations, a couple of dozen arrests, and the historic and far-reaching Leveson Inquiry.
If they can’t have a monument on Fleet Street, then what about MBEs all round?
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
18 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Celebrity magazine editors today welcomed the idea of a register under the Press Complaints Commission of privacy-conscious celebrities suggested by Lord Justice Leveson at his inquiry into the UK press.
“It would be a very useful tool for us if they used a body like the PCC to update them on their circumstances”, Lucie Cave , the editor of Heat magazine said.
However, OK! editor Lisa Byrne warned: “Every celebrity might say, ‘No, I don’t want any pictures of my family ever again.’ Then it could cause a problem.”
Cave told the Leveson Inquiry there may be public interest in exposing the hypocritical behaviour of celebrities who are “role models”.
Giving an example of a celebrity who portrayed themselves as a “real family person” and went on to have an affair, Lucie Cave explained: “I think there obviously can sometimes be a public interest argument if a celebrity who is a role model for our readers does something that contradicts how they portray themselves.”
Cave conceded there was a “great difference between public interest and things that are interesting to the public.”
Cave, Byrne and Hello! magazine editor Rosie Nixon were largely in agreement that once a celebrity had sold an aspect of their private life to the press, it did not mean they were now “open season”.
“I don’t think it’s fair,” Cave said, “it doesn’t mean everyone has a right to invade their private life.”
When asked about photos in this week’s issue of Simon Cowell on a yacht, Cave admitted the magazine did not seek his permission before publishing. “We know from Simon Cowell, he kind of enjoys the lifestyle that goes with his celebrity and he’s clearly playing up to the paparazzi,” she said.
Cave told the Inquiry that Heat magazine has received eight PCC complaints in 14 years, and rarely gets complaints from readers.
She also said her magazine’s picture desk would question an agency supplying photographs if it seemed they were taken in questionable circumstances. “Normally it’s glaringly obvious if there’s been an infringement of that celebrity’s privacy and we wouldn’t go anywhere near it.”
Nixon also defended her magazine, saying it “works directly with the stars every step of the way”. She added, “It’s a really honest, trusting, sort of relationship — we ultimately wouldn’t do anything to upset anyone.”
“We’re not in the business of printing salacious gossip,” Nixon said.
Byrne also said that a “a huge percentage” of OK! magazine’s stories came from “working directly with the celebrities”.
The Inquiry continues next week.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
18 Jan 2012 | Index Index, Middle East and North Africa, minipost
A senior reporter was shot dead in a Pakistan mosque yesterday. Mukarram Khan Atif, a correspondent for Washington-based Deewa Radio and a reporter for the Pakistani television station Dunya News, was shot by two unidentified gunmen during evening prayers. Atif was shot in the chest and head, and was taken to Lady Reading Hospital in Peshawar where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Another reporter, Rasool Dawar, claimed to have received a phone call from Ehsanulah Ehsan, the spokesman for banned militant organization Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, who claiming responsibility for the attack.
