20 Aug 2013 | Digital Freedom, Index Reports, News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture, Russia
(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)
The situation for freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association in Russia has deteriorated since the re-election of Vladimir Putin in March 2012. The main issues of concern are repression against Russian NGOs, strict anti-blasphemy laws, increasing limits on digital freedom, the banning of “homosexual propaganda” and the re-criminalisation of libel.
Amendments to the law on Non-Governmental Organisations, adopted in July 2012, forced all NGOs that receive funds from abroad to register as “foreign agents” (a highly charged phrase, synonymous with “spy”) if they are involved in “political activities”, the latter term being very broadly defined. During March 2013, dozens of NGOs in Russia were inspected to determine whether their activities comply with current legislation. This potentially endangers the activities of NGOs in Russia including those working on freedom of expression and human rights groups.
Freedom of religious expression has been compromised through anti-extremism legislation that allows selective implementation of its ambiguous definitions. An anti-blasphemy law that provides for prison terms or fines for offending religious feeling was passed by Russia’s parliament in April 2013.
The attitude of the authorities to whistle-blowers has been highlighted through the authorities’ posthumously trial of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky investigated cases of corruption among high-ranking Russian officials; he died in prison in 2009 in pre-trial detention and no one has ever been charged with his death.
Freedom of expression in the LGBT community has been restricted after the State Duma adopted a law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality. Similar laws were previously introduced at the regional level in 11 administrative entities of the Russian Federation, including the second largest city St. Petersburg.
Media Freedom
Russia continues to be one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 54 reporters have been killed in Russia since 1992, with 16 cases still unsolved. Impunity remains a significant problem for journalists: on-going threats of violence are rarely investigated properly by the authorities. The killers of Natalia Estemirova, Abdulmalik Akhmedilov, Khadzhimurad Kamalov and other prominent investigative reporters have never been prosecuted; nor have the organisers of Anna Politkovskaya’s murder.
In July 2012, criminal libel was reintroduced by the State Duma into the criminal code after being decriminalized in November 2011. Defamation laws are used to silence the press. Dmitry Muratov, the editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, says courts are used as a censorship instrument in Russia. His newspaper lost three libel appeals in just one week in November 2011, all issued by the Department of Presidential Affairs after they published investigative journalism into federal budget spending.
Other legislative challenges to media freedom in Russia include a law on high treason that endangers Russian journalists who work for the international media, as it prohibits providing information to foreign countries, and a law that forbids the media from using obscene words. Another draft law will classify media outlets that receive more than 50 per cent of their revenues from abroad as “foreign agents”.
The genuine diversity of media ownership in Russia is questionable. Opinion polls by the Levada Centre show that 69 per cent of Russian citizens consider the three state-owned TV channels to be the primary source of their information. Most of the other national media outlets are either co-owned by the state, or belong to oligarchs who have relationships with the Kremlin. Several top managers and editors recently were fired or resigned from their positions in Kommersant and Gazeta.ru in protest against their owners’ intrusion into editorial policies. Several independent online publications critical of the authorities were closed down by their owners.
The lack of independent political and investigative reporting is not likely to be rectified by the launch of a new channel “Public Television of Russia”, scheduled for May 2013. While the new channel has been described as a public service broadcaster “equally independent from the state and advertising”, it will in fact rely on government funding. Furthermore, its CEO is appointed directly by the President of Russia, casting further doubts over its editorial independence.
Digital Freedom
As internet use grows in Russia, the authorities have introduced new restrictive laws that challenge free expression online and allow filtering and blocking of content. Federal Law No. 139-FZ, adopted in July 2012 created a blacklist of sites with “harmful” information under a pretext of child protection. The law suggested broad and ambiguous definitions that allow extrajudicial censorship of online content. Roskomnadzor, a dedicated state agency, compiles a black list of web-pages that contain child pornography, “extremist materials” and information on suicide or drug use. ISPs are obliged by the law to block all the blacklisted web-pages.
Extensive online censorship is accompanied by surveillance of Russians’ online activities. SORM, a nation-wide surveillance system, operated with Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology, allows the state security force not only to control, but even to intrude into the internet traffic of any internet user in Russia without any special permit or court decision.
There was a series of cyber-attacks on the websites of independent Russian media outlets, such as Kommersant, Ekho Moskvy, Bolshoi Gorod, Dozhd’ TV and Slon.ru, during the street protests in May 2012. No one has been prosecuted for these attacks.
Artistic Freedom
As the authorities of the country try to increase its electoral support among more conservative layers of society, they rely more on support of the Russian Orthodox Church. Increasingly close political relationships between the state and the church account for much of the persecution of artists and censorship of arts on grounds of “protecting of traditional values”. One of the recent draft laws, adopted by the parliament in the first reading, provides for five years in prison for “insulting believers’ feelings”. Reports talk about increasing self-censorship among artists; several cases of prosecution were noted as well.
In August 2012 Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina, and Ekaterina Samutsevich, members of punk group Pussy Riot, were each sentenced to two years imprisonment for organising a “punk prayer” in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. Despite the group claiming their performance was an artistic act of political protest against President Putin’s regime, they were found guilty of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.” In October 2012, Samutsevich was released on probation, but sentences against the other two members of the band were upheld.
Anti-extremist laws and articles of the Criminal Code relating to incitement to religious hatred have long been used for censorship of art in Russia. In July 2010 art curators Andrei Erofeev and Yuri Samodurov were fined for organising the Forbidden Art 2006 exhibition in Moscow, after several of the works were claimed by prosecutors to “incite hatred” and “denigrate human dignity.” In December 2012, prosecutors in St Petersburg launched an investigation into an exhibition by British artists Jake and Dinos Chapman after visitors complained it was “blasphemous” and “extremist” for featuring images of a crucified Ronald McDonald and Nazi symbolism.
This article was originally published on 20 Aug, 2013 at indexoncensorship.org. Index on Censorship: The voice of free expression
19 Aug 2013 | Campaigns, Counter Terrorism
On Sunday, David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has been instrumental in revealing mass surveillance programmes run by the US, was detained at London Heathrow. He was held for almost nine hours and questioned under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the law which allows the police to stop, detain and question any individuals at airports and other border areas.
According to the New York Times, Brazilian citizen Miranda was travelling between Berlin and Rio De Janeiro, where he lives with Greenwald. Miranda had met journalist Laura Poitras in Germany, apparently in order to exchange documents. Greenwald said that the Guardian had paid for Miranda’s trip.
The broad powers that the Terrorism Act 2000 has given to the police were supposed to be used to clamp down on terrorism. However, as the example of David Miranda shows when such powers are not controlled they can be easily abused. The Terrorism Act creates a situation in which all of us, whenever we are at airports or other border areas can become potential terrorism suspects. As a result the most crucial human rights that all people have are put into question.
Under the Terrorism Act people detained or questioned are not automatically allowed to have access to a lawyer. If they exercise their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination they may be charged with a separate offence for refusing to cooperate with the police. The detention of David Miranda makes it difficult to escape the conclusion that the Terrorism Act allows the authorities to target journalists and others such as human rights defenders.
Index Chief Executive Kirsty Hughes commented: “The Terrorism Act should not be used to directly or indirectly intimidate journalists. If David Miranda was detained because of his association with Glenn Greenwald, it is not only a misuse of the Terrorism Act but a direct challenge to free speech in this country and internationally.”
19 Aug 2013 | Greece, News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture
Media coverage of neo-fascist Golden Dawn’s activities in recent weeks has focused on the Nazi anthem played at a food distribution event the party held or the swatstika tattooed arm of a party spokesperson Ilias Kasidiaris. It’s all portrayed as another lifestyle, albeit with a fascist tint.
But these incidents are evidence of a continuing and alarming political reality that no Greek or European can turn a blind eye to.
It’s been argued that the fascism emerging today is the result of long-term political and social trends. Right wing populists, far rightists and independent extremists all share – more or less – a common principal: They see immigration, ethnic diversity and religious freedoms as a threat to national cohesion.
It is in this context that the neo-fascist party carries out its actions against groups that violate its perceptions of the Greek nation. These “dissidents” include anti-fascists, anarchists, leftists, homosexuals and immigrants. Since the outset of the economic crisis, the party has managed to persuade some of the impoverished middle and working classes that it speaks for them.
George Pleios, head of the Department of Communication and Media Studies Faculty at the University of Athens, has recently written about the political affinities of the “right” and the “far-right” spectrum and their culture of political intolerance, either in or outside parliament.
“There is a common ideological reservoir whereby far-right MPs and proponents of right-wing extremism express their political views and plan their political actions. For them national identity comes first. There is no room for individual rights. Nobody is entitled to any other belief than the nation and the race”.
Within Greece, there is speculation that New Democracy will cooperate with Golden Dawn at some point. Pleios considers that a possibility.
“Everything is possible. In that case, of course, many political compromises must be made. Both parties would never want to experience severe election loss”, he said.
Golden Dawn entered the Greek Parliament in 2012 with an unprecedented 6.92% of the vote. The party’s poll ratings have reached 18% in recent days. During this time, there has been a strong legitimisation of their rhetoric, mainly emanating from the right wing political spectrum.
At first glance, the picture one gets from the parliamentary discourse is that Golden Dawn is heavily criticized with its back against the wall. Not so long ago, there was discussion of banning the party. In May, the Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras held talks around an anti-racism bill that was aimed at slowing the growth of the party.
A more careful look though, suggests differently. According to a report from Dimitris Psarras, investigative journalist at “The Journalists’ Newspaper” (Efimerida Ton Sintakton), many far-rightists and junta nostalgics that survived politically throughout the years, today surround the Greek prime minister as associates, advisors or New Democracy party members.
Makis Voridis, recently appointed as special representative on migration to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, has been defending Savvas Hatziparaskeyas, publisher of the far-right newspaper “Stohos” and a strong supporter of Golden Dawn.
In the1980s Voridis served as secretary of EPEN’s youth wing, succeeding Nikos Michaloliakos, who is Golden Dawn’s general secretary. EPEN was a fascist party founded by Georgios Papadopoulos, the head of the military coup d’état, which ruled Greece from 1967-1974.
Another connection between some New Democracy members and Golden Dawn comes from the writings of Failos Kranidiotis, an unofficial advisor to Samaras. On 12 December 2012 Kranidiotis wrote that New Democracy should appeal to populist “Independent Greeks” as well as to Golden Dawn. “These are mainly our people”, he wrote.
A few months later, Panayotis Baltakos, the government’s general secretary, allegedly said that cooperation between New Democracy and Golden Dawn in upcoming elections is “undesirable but not an unlikely possibility”. Last December, Baltakos had told the National Commission for Human Rights that regarding the committee’s work on human rights and the country’s international obligations “he doesn’t care in his capacity as a representative of the government and New Democracy”.
On 1July, former minister Vironas Polydoras, when asked whether New Democracy should cooperate with the neo-fascist party said:
“Of course…”.
Moreover he insisted that the troika — the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank– not Golden Dawn, poses the greatest threat to Greece.
In response, Anna Asimakopoulou, a spokesperson for New Democracy, said that the party “would never work with neonazis”.
Golden Dawn has also fostered relationships with some orthodox religious groups and bishops belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church. At the same time, the party has targeted performers and topics that it does not agree with.
In March 2013, journalist Matthaios Tsimitakis reported for Index on Censhorship what happened when the controversial theatrical play “Corpus Christi” went on stage:
“For about a month, the actors and other workers at the Hitirion Theatre had to take precautions to protect themselves from threats against their lives and violent attacks by Orthodox religious groups and Golden Dawn”.
Golden Dawn has made its position on the arts that don’t fit with the party’s philosophy clear.
“Abolition of state subsidies and the marginalization of the ‘artists’ that offend ethnic, religious and historical symbols”. – from a Golden Dawn political leaflet (p. 22)
Greek Orthodox clerics like Bishop Amvrosios of Kalavryta and Bishop Seraphim of Piraeus have openly expressed their support of Golden Dawn. Both of them have often spoken out against Jews and homosexuals, though their viewpoints are at odds with other members of the church hierarchy.
On 15 July, Amvrosios wrote on his blog that “we have to rise up” because “we have been sold out a long ago. We are Jewish occupied”. In an older post he writes about the “imminent threat” of Islam saying, “Islam does not play around”.
In much the same spirit, Golden Dawn’s rhetoric contains islamophobic and anti-semetic propaganda.
“1400 year old tradition of Jihad has reached Europe, as well as Greece, and is ready to conquer the continent and our country”, says a recent article on Golden Dawn’s official website entitled “Enemy at The Gates: Islam as a Trojan Horse of New Order”.
In June, the Muslim Association of Greece received a threatening note with the emblem of Golden Dawn printed on it. All Muslims, Greeks and foreigners, were given one month’s time (until 30 June) to leave the country otherwise they would be “slaughtered like chickens”.
Golden Dawn denied any connection with the note, calling it a provocation to the party.
Greece’s next legislative election is due to be held by 2016. What Golden Dawn’s role will be is an open question.
This article was originally published at on 19 Aug, 2013 indexoncensorship.org. Index on Censorship: The voice of free expression
