4 Jun 2013 | Campaigns, Greece
Dear President Barroso,
I will be standing trial on 10 June because, as a journalist, I published the names of Greek bank account holders contained on the Lagarde list in my anti-corruption magazine, HOT DOC. I am being accused of violating privacy laws.
On 28 October, a special section of the Hellenic police, under orders from the public prosecutor’s office, arrested me before the ink was dry on the issue of the magazine containing the names of people who should have been investigated for alleged tax evasion.
I was ushered hastily into a trial which ended with my acquittal. The court found that I had violated no privacy laws. I had published only the names of people who held bank accounts at HSBC without any other details, such as the amount of their deposits. My argument to the court was that someone’s relationship with a bank is not a personal detail, since no one covers their face to walk up to an ATM. The court also accepted my contention that there were reasons of public interest for the publication of the names on the Lagarde list.
As you may already know, a disk with the names of the Lagarde list was officially handed over to the Greek government for purposes of investigating corruption and tax evasion. This investigation never happened because ministers said the list is illegal and cannot be utilized. They reached to the point of claiming that they’d lost the data.
The lack of an investigation created an atmosphere of mistrust in the political system. Greek governments appeared to be protecting alleged tax-dodgers making the public angry. At the same time, behind the scenes, the list was being used for blackmail and defamation.
At HOT DOC, we decided to publish the list as soon as we reached the conclusion that the data we had was valid. This was our duty, as citizens and as journalists. This is when we found ourselves confronted with the events described by the New York Times and other international media: “Instead of hitting tax evasion, they chose to hit the journalist who exposed it.”
The Lagarde list is not only a list of potential tax dodgers. It captures the way corruption functions in Greece—with, unfortunately, the support of the political system.
After I was acquitted, the public prosecutor’s office did something unheard of in the annals of the judiciary for a court chaired by a single judge. They appealed my acquittal, claiming that not all the incriminating evidence was taken into consideration. The original case file did not include a single element of evidence, not even the incriminating issue of the magazine. The charges were so hastily put together that they even forgot to put the official stamp of the prosecutor on the file.
President Barroso, this is a targeted and selective persecution against a magazine that fights corruption. We had to be punished. Since HOT DOC published the Lagarde list, three Greek newspapers also published lists of taxpayers who are being investigated. One of the papers even ran the Lagarde list names with the amount of individual deposits. No charges were brought against them.
The trial on 10 June is not my trial but the trial of the independence of the Greek press. The current climate is asphyxiating freedom of the press, as independent media is heavily indebted and owners of TV channels pressure the government for contracts. Greece ranked 71st in press freedom this year, behind several developing countries and military regimes. A Greek minister recently said he would sue The Guardian for revealing that Greek police were using torture.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion with regard to addressing the Greek crisis. But the crisis cannot be addressed without democratic principles. Greece is drifting away from the standards of western democracy as they were established after World War II. Truth in the media is the first victim.
I would like you to know that, if I am found guilty, I will not ask for a suspension of my sentence. I will let myself be taken to jail. This is the only way for me to show what is truly happening in this country, which has its roots in ancient Greek democracy and claims to embrace European democracy. A corrupt system of power in my country is persecuting me for the very same reasons for which I was awarded two international journalism prizes this year.
I believe that Europe is able to preserve democracy, to highlight its civilization and to unite its citizens. This cannot be achieved when people are not free and when the press is silenced.
Thank you for your attention.
Kostas Vaxevanis
Kostas Vaxevanis is a Greek investigative journalist and Guardian/Index on Censorship Journalism Award-winner.
Related
• Corruption, fear and silence: the state of Greek media today (11 April 2013)
• Free speech takes a beating in Greece (25 March 2013)
• Why I would go to jail for my journalistic beliefs (22 March 2013)
• Winners – Index Awards 2013 (21 March 2013)
• Europe has a duty to speak out on Vaxevanis (23 November 2012)
4 Jun 2013 | India
Recent decisions by India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have raised questions about the country’s approach to broadcasting regulation. Mahima Kaul reports
Comedy Central ran afoul of India’s Ministry of Information for broadcasting content considered obscene.
Both Comedy Central India and Fashion TV were slapped with 10-day suspension notices for violating the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995. The reasons for the ban – listed in a detailed letter by a ministry official – included offending good taste, obscenity, injuring public morality and denigrating women.
Two Comedy Central programs in particular drew the government action. French prank show, Popcorn, and a stand-up comedy showcase. The French program featured simulated sex with a dummy. The suspension began on 25 May and was appealed by the station’s operator, joint venture Viacom 18 Media. The ban was initially upheld, but lift after a second appeal on 28 May.
Fashion TV drew a 10-day ban after it aired obscene content that included models in lingerie with their buttocks fully exposed.
In appealing its ban, Comedy Central pointed out it is a niche channel catering to a sliver of the English speaking public in India. The broadcaster believes that its viewers will not be offended by the programming it airs.
The government says it is trying to walk a fine line between freedom of expression and vulgarity. Finding that line is difficult in a country that has gone so far as to ban mannequins dressed in underwear in Mumbai shops because the displays lead to a “pollution of minds in today’s generation.”
India’s broadcasters see self-regulation as the way forward, and as a result, interference from the government is met with a harsh backlash. Currently, public complaints against general entertainment channels are funneled to the channels through avenues such as the industry-led Broadcast Content Complaints Council. In fact, the BCCC has a list of published “self-regulation guidelines” on its site which are open to the public. The list of topics that people can complain includes kissing, nudity and sex. In fact, a look at BCCC’s action-taken documents show the body has evenly protected channels as much as it has taken them to task for their content. This includes Comedy Central in the past. However, experts believe that the body has been lenient on its members because their interest lies in letting their programming go unopposed — as it stands today. Self regulation in India is under scrutiny, with even the judiciary asking the BCCC to pull up its socks in the past.
In the present case of the Comedy Central ban, the government had issued a notice to Comedy Central last June to which the channel responded a month later, saying it had taken a “serious note of all concerns”. However, with repeated offenses, an Inter-Ministerial Committee decided to impose the ban as punishment. The government believes the channel has failed to self regulate and follow applicable programme codes, and therefore the penalty must be imposed.
Comedy Central believes the government should have gone through the BCCC instead of direct action from the ministry.
Three things emerge in this case. The first is that the nature of the complaints as well as the public backlash at any action against channels reveals the very contradictory nature of India’s viewing public right now. The second is that if, as most channels agree, self-regulation is the best way forward, then the government might want to rely on the industry for disciplinary action, even though it has the power to impose bans. The third is that the industry should hear the government loud and clear: if self regulation is not working, it intends to step in.
4 Jun 2013 | In the News
INDEX REPORT
Taking the offensive – defending artistic freedom of expression in the UK
Report Contents: Summary | Introduction | What is artistic freedom of expression? | What are the limits to freedom of expression? | Institutional self-censorship | Reinforcing support for artistic freedom of expression | Conclusion | Appendix I: Audience Feedback and Statistics | Appendix II: Conference Programme | Appendix III: Cases of Censored Artwork | Artist Videos | Full report in PDF
INDEX EVENTS
10 June: Caught in the web: how free are we online?
The internet: free open space, wild wild west, or totalitarian state? However you view the web, in today’s world it is bringing both opportunities and threats for free expression.
22 June: Turkey vs the UK: what’s the score on free expression?
The Turkish Writers Football Club is coming to London to play the England Writers Team and the pressure is on. But it’s not just about sport. Index on Censorship is grabbing the chance to bring both sides together to debate the state of free expression in both countries.
GLOBAL
UN report calls for freedom of expression in post-2015 development
Calling for a transformation in the approach to global development that includes a larger role for freedom of expression, the United Nations’ High Level Panel of Eminent Persons released its Post-2015 Development Agenda report, Milana Knezevic writes. (Index on Censorship)
BAHRAIN
Bahrain court jails three protesters
A Bahrain court on Monday jailed three protesters for up to 15 years on charges including attempting to kill a policeman and taking part in anti-government demonstrations, a lawyer said. (AhramOnline)
CANADA
CJFE disturbed by arrest of Toronto Star reporter
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) is concerned about the arrest and treatment of Toronto Star journalist Alex Consiglio, charged with trespassing for taking photos on June 2 of an injured GO Transit officer at Union Station in Toronto. (Press Release)
CHINA
7 things you can’t talk about in China
They’re like George Carlin’s seven dirty words, except it’s not the FCC who’s banning them, but the Communist Party of China. (Global Post)
JORDAN
Jordan blocks over 200 ‘unlicensed’ websites
The Jordanian government began blocking over 200 websites on Sunday for failing to obtain licenses under a strict set of new guidelines, Ruth Michaelson reports. (Index on Censorship)
MALAYSIA
‘Tanda Putera’: Let the public decide, say legal activists
Show the movie Tanda Putera and let the public decide – as to do otherwise would amount to stifling freedom of speech, say legal activists. (The Sun)
MIDDLE EAST
Freedom of Expression: The Second Arab Battle
Syria and the uprisings in Bahrain and other countries represent one of the two important battles underway in the Arab world, whose outcomes will largely determine the future shape of Arab political systems. The second battle is not about who rules in a country, but rather about the right of a citizen to express him or herself. (Cairo Review of Global Affairs)
RUSSIA
Shutting down Russia’s LGBT community
Elena Vlasenko reports on the continuing official campaign against lesbians and gays. (Index on Censorship)
SINGAPORE
Singapore’s new website licensing seen as censorship
The Government in Singapore has introduced new rules meaning popular news websites have to apply for a licence if they want to keep operating. (ABC/Radio Australia)
TAIWAN
Taiwan backs off plan to block sites violating copyright laws
Taiwan’s authorities in charge of intellectual property protection have decided to give up a plan to block overseas Internet services that violate copyright laws amid opposition to the plan from free-speech advocates.
(Focus Taiwan)
TUNISIA
In Tunisia, a free speech tussle could land a professor in jail
Last year a Tunisian academic complained that a member of the constitutional drafting committee had watered down free speech protections in the document. (Christian Science Monitor)
TURKEY
Turkey losing its way on free speech
The protests erupting across Turkey have shown a wider audience – domestic and international – the increasingly problematic nature of Turkish democracy, and its growing authoritarian tendencies. Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes writes (Index on Censorship)
“There is now a menace called Twitter”
Against a backdrop of unrest that started in an Istanbul park last week and has spread throughout the country, Ece Temelkuran asks why the Turkish government is afraid of the internet (Index on Censorship)
Turkey protests: Union to start two-day strike
One of Turkey’s big trade union groups is staging a two-day strike to support continuing anti-government protests in a number of cities. (BBC News)
UKRAINE
Ukraine holds first gay pride parade amidst intolerance and suppression
Ukraine successfully held the country’s first ever gay pride parade, but the level of intimidation faced by the LGBT community is growing. Andrew Connelly reports from Kiev (Index on Censorship)
UNITED STATES
AFDI to Protest Justice Department’s Attempt to Criminalize Criticism of Islam
The human rights organization American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) is holding a demonstration for free speech in Tennessee, at the site of a Justice Department initiative advising the application of civil rights laws to shut down criticism of Islam. (Press Release)
Christian Group Believes Atheists Have Right to Post Monument at Fla. Courthouse
A member of a Christian organization that posted a Decalogue outside a Florida courthouse said an atheist group posting a monument in the same location has the right to do so. (The Christian Post)
Terminated employee’s free speech case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court
An attorney monitoring a First Amendment case from Ohio being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court says it could set a precedent for religious freedom in the United States.
(One News Now)
The United States vs. Freedom of Speech
The criminalization of journalists in the United States is not a new occurrence, but the overt and veiled threats to reporters and their sources is becoming less of a rarity. (Huffington Post)
Pitching a Tent Is Free Speech, Says ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio has filed a lawsuit against the City of Columbus on behalf of the local Occupy Wall Street group. The complaint, filed on May 30 in U.S. District Court, claimed that placing a tent or other structure that “is not easily movable” in a public space qualifies as free speech protected by the First Amendment and the state constitution.
(National Review)
U.S. Attorney says Muslim tolerance event will discuss free speech rights
An event federal prosecutors and the FBI are planning Tuesday to discuss the enforcement of civil rights laws to protect Muslims will also focus on what kinds of speech are guaranteed by the First Amendment, U.S. Attorney Bill Killian said in a statement Monday.
(Politico)
The Distasteful Side of Social Media Puts Advertisers on Their Guard
As social media sites pursue advertising in a bid for new revenue, they are finding that they must simultaneously create a safe space for the advertisers they attract.
(The New York Times)
3 Jun 2013 | Campaigns, Europe and Central Asia, Turkey Statements
As protests continue in many cities across Turkey, the reactions of government, police and media have shown up only too clearly to a wider audience – domestic and international – the increasingly problematic nature of Turkish democracy, and its growing authoritarian tendencies. Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes writes
Police brutality in response to the mainly peaceful protesters has been rightly criticised. The failure of mainstream Turkish media to cover the protests from the start – choosing instead cooking programmes and other non-contentious fare – has surprised some, and also being strongly criticised. If anyone inside or outside Turkey had not paid attention to growing censorship, including self-censorship, of Turkish media, it has now been widely exposed for all to see. Yet comments from some, including the European Union, have been surprisingly limited – focusing mainly on police brutality and not the wider human rights and democracy issues.
While some commentators rashly labelled the protests a ‘Turkish spring’, those who have followed Erdogan’s AKP government in its move from promoting a number of key democratic reforms ten years ago to showing a more authoritarian side in the last few years were clear that these authoritarian tendencies are underpinning this outburst of discontent. As Amberin Zaman writes: “My overall impression, and it’s commonly shared, is that the Taksim Park project has morphed into a vehicle for popular resentment against Erdogan’s increasingly dismissive and authoritarian ways”.
As she concisely puts it: “He is a democratically elected leader who has been acting in an increasingly undemocratic way.”
While Erdogan successfully stood up to ‘soft’ and anti-democratic attempts to undermine his government – the ‘e-coup’ in 2007, the attempted ‘ judicial coup’ in 2008 – subsequent years have seen increasing numbers of journalists jailed, considerable political pressure on media outlets, with journalists and editors widely self-censoring, and many being dismissed for expressing opinions freely in their writing.
Index highlighted this censorship in shortlisting Turkish journalists for its media freedom award this year. The Turkish media themselves have now highlighted it in their failure to fully cover these widespread protests.
Those who have been promoting Turkey as a role model for ‘Arab Spring’ countries like Egypt and Tunisia, or who have been holding back on criticising Turkey’s increasing attacks on free speech for reasons of diplomacy and real politik, now must surely face up to the more difficult reality that Turkey is a country that imprisons more journalists today than Iran or China. The European Union’s foreign policy supremo Cathy Ashton did, with a delay, come out to condemn disproportionate use of force by the police.
Related: “There is now a menace which is called Twitter”
Index Events
Join Index on Censorship and a panel of Turkish and British writers to discuss free speech in Turkey, 22 June, Arcola Theatre London
But the EU should have addressed sooner and more strongly the clear and growing attacks on media freedom in Turkey – and Ashton has, even now, yet to come out strongly on this in the context of the protests. The EU has rather little influence in Turkey compared to a decade ago when membership talks were about to start – these talks have now faltered and slowed. But the EU does insist all candidate countries meet its ‘Copenhagen Criteria’ that say candidates must be democracies who respect the rule of law and human rights. Back in 2004, when the Union’s leaders agreed to start talks Turkey was said to “sufficiently meet” those criteria.
It is no longer clear, given its deliberate creation of media censorship, and the brutality of police in the face of mass protests, that Turkey does meet those criteria. If the EU stands for human rights in its neighbourhood, surely it should make a much stronger, robust condemnation of Turkey’s growing anti-democratic tendencies and its attacks on freedom of expression.
