If you want to understand the media environment in Macedonia, the phenomenon of parallel journalists’ organisations is a good place to start. Initially, the associations were created to promote and protect professional standards and freedom of expression. However, in the hands of politicians and elites, the groups have become a tool for creating parallel realities.
The Association of Journalists of Macedonia (ZNM) and the Macedonian Association of Journalists (MAN) have similar missions. ZNM was founded in 1946 as “an independent, non-governmental and non-political party organization whose purpose is to be the protector and promoter of professional standards and freedom of expression”. MAN was formed in 2002. Both have impressive codes of conduct, mission and vision statements and stress strengthening unity within the profession.
In practice, however, because Macedonia is a polarised society most journalists are aligned with the governing party or its opposition. There are very few truly independent reporters. This is a trend that has been borne out by the latest verified incidents reported to Mapping Media Freedom.
Take, for example, two incidents that tool place on 14and 15July 2015. In both reports, the victim was Sashe Ivanovski, a highly controversial citizen journalist and owner of the web portal, Maktel. He is a vocal critic of the government and quite often uses unusual means to pose questions or demonstrate his critiques. On 14 July — in front of dozen witnesses — Ivanovski was physically assaulted by Aleksandar Spasovski, a reporter for TV Sitel, a pro-government broadcaster. Some local media outlets report that Ivanovski, during Spasovski’s live reporting, yelled something that was eventually aired live on TV. Spasovski approached Ivanovski and whispered in his ear, “I will kill you” before slapping him twice. Other TV crews caught the incident on camera.
In the 15 July incident, Vladimir Peshevski, deputy prime minister for economic affairs, also physically assaulted Ivanovski. While recording with his mobile phone, Ivanovski approached Peshevski, asking him about the wiretapping scandal in Macedonia. Peshevski then turned to attack Ivanovski in front of the clientele of a cafe bar. This incident was alsorecorded.
ZNMstrongly condemned the assaults on Ivanovski, while MAN— of which Spasovski is a member — condemned Ivanovski’s behavior, stating that he is “not a journalist” and that he “was obstructing the work of Spasovski”. Based on these two diametrically opposed statements, the media set about creating two opposing narratives.
At first, information was aired only on independent media — which is significantly smaller than pro-government media — and those outlets that are close to the opposition. In this narrative, the attacks on Ivanovski were deplorable. The second narrative was that of the pro-government media, in which Ivanovski was actually accused of obstructing another journalist’s work. It was also claimed that Ivanovski himself is not a journalist, therefore the attack from Peshevski had no bearing on freedom of expression.
In a written reaction, Kurir, a pro-government media outlet, accused the country’s biggest opposition party of undermining media freedom. It wrote that SDSM, the main opposition party in the country, regularly puts pressure on them during their press conferences by accusing them of not being professional journalists. Only MAN condemned the incident while there was no reaction from ZNM.
So far, there is only one case that has been condemned by the both organisations. That was when the opposition leader Zoran Zaev said that he considers the national broadcasters — Sitel, Kanal 5, Alfa and MRTV, and also the daily Dnevnik — as “his greatest political enemies”.
Reading the statements published on the web pages of ZNMand MAN is like reading the media situation in two different countries. MAN’s statements create the impression that the opposition in Macedonia rules the country and uses its enormous resources to control the media. Similar claims are made by the governing parties in neighboring countries with autocratic tendencies. Then there is ZNM, where most incidents are recorded, but some are missing, especially when pro-government journalists are targeted by the opposition parties and supporters.
The trend of politically-aligned journalists’ organisations is not exclusive to Macedonia. In Croatia, for example, a second journalists’ association was created and supports the interests of the new centre-right government. The goal of politicians in many countries seems to be to make the media less effective by driving a wedge between journalists.
In response to the attacks on Tolo TV on 20 January, in which eight people have been killed and 30 others injured, we stand in solidarity with the Afghan media community. We condemn this and all other attacks on Afghanistan’s journalists unreservedly and applaud their courage to stand together undeterred by those who seek to silence them. We want to tell our colleagues throughout Afghanistan they are not alone; the international community is behind them. The journalists and media workers of Afghanistan are playing a leading role in working fearlessly to ensure that the voices of violent extremists do not dominate the news agenda. We remain ready to help them in this perilous endeavour.
Signed by (and including links to additional statements on the Tolo attack from these organizations),
Article 19, UK
Committee to Protect Journalists, USA
Free Press Unlimited, Netherlands
Index on Censorship, UK
Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX), Canada
International News Safety Institute UK
International Media Support, Denmark
International Press Institute, Austria
World Association of Newspapers, France
Open Society Foundations, Program on Independent Journalism, UK
Reporters Without Borders, France
Rory Peck Trust, UK
Donald Trump, who controversially called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA, will not be banned from entering the UK after a debate over whether he should be allowed to enter the UK. In September 2015, Tyler, the Creator, an American hip-hop artist known for his controversial lyrics, did not fare so well.
On 26 August 2015, the musician was banned from entering the UK because of words he had penned for songs released in 2009. That day, Tyler explained the situation on Twitter, saying: “BASED ON LYRICS FROM 2009 I AM NOT ALLOWED IN THE UK FOR 3-5 YEARS (although I was there 8 weeks ago) THAT IS WHY THE SHOWS WERE CANCELLED.”
Speaking to Vice at the time, Index on Censorship’s chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: “The British government has talked repeatedly in recent months about the importance of free expression and yet shown again and again through its actions that this commitment is half-hearted. Free expression includes allowing those whose speech others find offensive to express themselves. Tyler, the Creator, should be allowed to perform.”
Tyler’s lyrics have a tendency to push buttons, with his adopted alter ego Wolf Haley spitting rhymes about raping pregnant women and using a hefty variety of slurs. However, he stands firm on the fact that his lyrical content in no way a represents him as an individual and what he believes. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “The thing that irks me about it is that the paper saying I am denied entry to UK clearly states that these songs were written from [the perspective of] an alter ego — which means they obviously did some research on these songs that they’re detaining me for.”
Additionally, in one of his most popular tracks, Radicals, he opens the song saying: “Hey, don’t do anything I say in this song, okay? It’s fuckin’ fiction. If anything happens, don’t fuckin’ blame me, white America, fuck Bill O’Reilly.” Seconds after the disclaimer, the MC launches into a tornado of aggressive bass and lines about defying what others think of him.
Tyler wasn’t the first rapper to be banned from the UK; both Busta Rhymes and Snoop Dogg have been denied entry because of convictions for criminal offences in the US. However, he is the first to be denied due to the content of his art.
Index on Censorship has teamed up with the producers of the award-winning They Will Have To Kill Us First to create the Music in Exile Fund to support musicians facing censorship globally. You can donate here, or by texting “BAND61 £10” to 70070 to give £10.
His Majesty Sheikh Hamad bin Issa Al Khalifa,
King of Bahrain
Fax: +973 176 64 587
CC: His Excellency Lieutenant General Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa
Minister of Interior
Email: [email protected]
His Excellency Sheikh Khaled Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Fax: 00973 17 21 05 75; [email protected]
And Permanent Mission of Bahrain to the United Nations in Geneva
Fax: + 41 22 758 96 50; Email: [email protected]
21 January 2016
Your Majesty,
We, the undersigned NGOs, call on the Bahraini authorities to lift the arbitrary travel ban on human rights defender Nabeel Rajab in order that he be able to travel abroad with his family for the purpose of securing medical assistance for his wife, Sumaya Rajab.
Nabeel Rajab is President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, Founding Director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, Deputy Secretary General of the International Federation for Human Rights and on the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East Division.
A public prosecutor imposed the travel ban on Nabeel Rajab without any judicial determination on July 13 2015, the day that Your Majesty pardoned him and ordered his release following his conviction for “publicly insulting official institutions” by criticizing the government on social media. The travel ban is related to two other speech-related charges that led to his arrest on April 2 2015, charges which prosecutors have not dropped.
The first outstanding charge is for allegedly “insulting a statutory body”, under article 216 of Bahrain’s Penal Code, based on his social media comments about the alleged torture of detainees in Jaw Prison in March 2015. The second accuses him of “disseminating false rumours in times of war,” under article 133 of the Penal Code, based on social media posts criticizing Saudi Arabia-led coalition air strikes in Yemen. Violations of articles 133 and 216 carry maximum sentences of 10 and three years in prison, respectively. Neither of the alleged acts upon which these charges are based were in any way recognisable criminal offences under international human rights law, and both involved the peaceful exercise of internationally protected rights to freedom of expression and to promote and protect human rights.
In November 2015, Sumaya Rajab was diagnosed with medical conditions requiring urgent and highly specialized treatment according to the medical expert team monitoring her condition. She was told that this treatment is not available in Bahrain.
In December 2015, Nabeel Rajab’s lawyers submitted their fourth appeal against the travel ban – they have submitted two requests to the attorney general, one request to the investigating prosecutor and one request to the Public Prosecution Office – requesting that it be lifted so he could accompany his wife. The Bahraini authorities have not responded to these appeals and the travel ban remains in place.
In November 2015, 81 Members of the European Parliament called on Your Majesty to lift Nabeel Rajab’s travel ban. The European Parliament passed a resolution in July 2015, shortly prior to Nabeel Rajab’s pardon, calling for his immediate and unconditional release alongside other prisoners of conscience. The same month, 44 members of the UK Parliament called on the government of Bahrain to drop Nabeel Rajab’s current charges and to release all political prisoners and those imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of expression. After his release, three UN human rights experts – Michael Forst, David Kaye, and Maina Kiai – called for Nabeel Rajab’s charges to be dropped. This followed the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, call for the release of all those detained in relation to their peaceful activities in Bahrain in June.
We, the undersigned, therefore call on the Bahraini authorities to:
Drop all pending free speech-related charges against Nabeel Rajab;
Lift the travel ban immediately and unconditionally, thus allowing Nabeel and Sumaya Rajab to travel; and
Guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders in Bahrain are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals, and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.
Signatories:
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Amnesty International
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR)
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
CIVICUS
English PEN
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Freedom House
Front Line Defenders
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
International Media Support (IMS)
International Service For Human Rights (ISHR)
Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada (LWRC)
Maharat Foundation
No Peace Without Justice
PEN International
Physicians for Human Rights
Rafto Foundation for Human Rights
Salam for Democracy and Human Rights
SENTINEL Human Rights Defenders
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
