19 May 2016 | Hungary, Mapping Media Freedom, mobile, News and features
In early April 2016, major Hungarian news website vs.hu began publishing less than normal. On 25 April a dozen journalists, including editor-in-chief Olivér Lebhardt, resigned. While the newsroom is still functioning, its future is yet to be decided by its owners, according to daily newspaper Népszabadság.
The mass resignation was prompted by revelations that the site, owned by New Wave Media (NWM), had received funding from foundations established by the Hungarian National Bank, the country’s central bank. The financing totaled more than 500 million HUF ($1.8 million).
NWM is owned by Czech company Bawaco Invest, which, Hungarian news site 444.hu reported, can be linked to Tamás Szemerey, a cousin of the central bank’s governor, György Matolcsy. The company issued a statement denying Szemerey’s ownership, according to the Financial Times.
The educational foundations were established in 2014 by Matolcsy, a politician allied to Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. The foundations were endowed with over 314 billion forints ($1.1 billion) of central bank funding that was then invested in government bonds, Reuters reported.
The finances of these foundations were kept secret, but after a ruling from the country’s constitutional court in March, their contracts were published on 22 April 2016. Since then, the press has delighted in revelations of the foundations’ profligacy, The Economist wrote. The bank’s foundations spent money on real estate and artworks, as well as funding web projects covering social and economic issues.
“I was informed by the editor-in-chief a day before [the NWM disclosures], on Wednesday 21 April 2016,” Attila Bátorfy, one of the journalists who resigned told Index on Censorship. “That day there was a meeting, where István Száraz, the CEO of the publishing company deferred to answer the journalist’s questions. Then on Friday, he was talking about only a couple hundred of million HUF, but we knew there would be a huge scandal.”
On the evening of 23 April the first articles about the foundations’ spending were published. The next day vs.hu journalists issued a joint statement saying that while some of them knew that part of their editorial projects were sponsored by the bank’s foundations, they had no knowledge of the extent of the financing, Bátorfy recalled.
“We are also surprised and shocked by the data published by the foundations,” the journalists wrote. The editorial team said that there was no interference with the content of the articles — even in projects that were sponsored.
“On that Saturday evening, we held an emergency meeting in my apartment. About 15 colleagues were present, and we talked about the minimal requirements we, as journalists, expect from our publisher, to consider continuing our work at vs.hu. We had no opportunity to present these demands, because in his opening speech the CEO made it clear that the situation is beyond hope,” Bátorfy recalled.
“Journalists started to hand in their resignations. Those working for the politics, economy, culture and multimedia sections said the situation made their work impossible, they lost credibility, and there is no reason to continue,” he told Index.
Bátorfy, who had worked for vs.hu for three months, said that he had accepted the role after he was told that the site was financed by private and state advertising and money from the owner.
In the wake of the revelations, the Editor-in-Chief’s Forum issued a statement asking parliament to pass a law that would require the transparent disclosure of ownership and state funding of media outlets. “This would be beneficial to the market transparency, and would decrease the defenselessness of the media workers,” the group said.
Hungary’s ruling conservative Fidesz party has been making changes to the country’s media market since it came to power in 2010. Most recently the government cut funding to culture magazines. In 2015 Hungarian public media laid off scores of journalists as its funding was cut, according to reports on MMF. In the case of Hungarian private TV station RTL Klub, an ongoing conflict led to a ban of its news reporters and the dismissal of the television network’s CEO. Observers like 2014 Index award-winning Tamás Bodoky have noted that government advertising contracts have been used as a “powerful censorship instrument”.
Access to information was restricted through a series of amendments in the freedom of information law in July 2015, but the free movement of journalists in the parliament building was also strictly regulated. As a consequence, journalists trying to ask questions about the National Bank scandal were banned from the Parliament.
On Tuesday 26 April 2016, a number of media outlets received notes from House Speaker László Kövér, in which the Fidesz politician informed them that their journalists were barred from entering the building for “filming without a permit” and “consciously breaking the rules”. The ban came a day after journalists attempted to question Fidesz politicians, including Orbán and Kövér. While journalists and camera crews followed MPs, they entered into a secure area that was out of bounds to members of the press.
The editor-in-chief of Népszabadság newspaper (nol.hu), András Murányi, wrote a response to the letter: “I can assure you that Népszabadság had no intention of breaking the rules. The goal of journalists working at Népszabadság was to ask those who are elected and are paid representatives of the people questions regarding public affairs, and to publish their answers. As for answers – as we could see this time again – we seldom get any, as we are more and more prevented to act as free press in Parliament (…) lately we can only do our job in a constricted area,” Murányi said.
18 May 2016 | About Index, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Counter Terrorism, Statements, United Kingdom
The government’s planned Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill must be carefully crafted to avoid damaging freedom of expression.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
The government’s plans to tackle extremism through a “new civil order regime” and other measures must not undermine the very values it aims to defend, free expression organisations said on Wednesday.
Index on Censorship, English PEN, the National Secular Society, the Christian Institute, ARTICLE 19, Big Brother Watch, Manifesto Club and the Peter Tatchell Foundation welcomed plans to consult on the matter, following their demands earlier this year.
The proposals for a new law, outlined in the Queen’s Speech, are more ambiguous than earlier proposals made by this government, but nevertheless leave open broad measures to police a wide swathe of speech and should be resisted, the groups said.
The new legislation will include giving law enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people – including children – “from those who seek to brainwash them with extremism propaganda so we build a stronger society around our shared liberal values of tolerance and respect”, according to the background notes accompanying the Queen’s Speech.
More specifically, the government proposals are to legislate:
· Stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public.
· Powers to intervene in intensive unregulated education settings which teach hate and drive communities apart.
· A new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity, following consultation.
· Closing loopholes so that Ofcom can continue to protect consumers who watch internet-streamed television content from outside the EU on Freeview.
The new proposals should avoid creating an environment that could make it even harder for people of all faiths and ideologies to express their beliefs and opinions, the groups said. Current legislation already prohibits incitement to violence and terrorism, and a compelling case for broadening them further through civil measures has not been made.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
The groups said plans to introduce new laws in this area presented three main risks:
1. Definitions
It is still not clear how new legislation would deal with the problem of defining “extremism” in a way that would not threaten free speech.
The government has previously defined extremism broadly as “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The continued lack of a clear definition risks outlawing any political expression that does not reflect mainstream or popular views.
Britain already has a host of laws to tackle the incitement of terrorist acts, as well as racial and religious hatred. The government has previously been criticised for the broad definitions of “terrorism” in existing legislation, and the definition of ”extremism” in the Prevent Strategy. The proposed bill must not introduce new vague terminology and widen the net even further.
“The government’s approach to extremism is unfocused. Unless we can make them see sense, the range of people who could find themselves labelled ‘extremist’ by their own government is about to get a whole lot wider,” said Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute.
2. Nature of new civil orders
The government is ambiguous on whether they are still considering “extremism disruption orders” or “banning orders” within the package of civil measures. Though the promised consultation is welcome, these draconian measures are clearly not off the table.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said previously that extremists need to be exposed, challenged and countered. The proposed measures would have the opposite effect and should not find their way into the new civil order regime.
“Extremism banning orders could mean political activists – or any other activists deemed to be ‘anti-democratic’ – such as environmental activists – could be outlawed in future, thereby undermining democracy itself,” said Jo Glanville, Director of English PEN.
Extremist disruption orders (EDO), suggested under earlier plans for the bill, could have a similar chilling effect on free expression and democracy. Under original plans for EDOs, the police would be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the “harmful activities” of an “extremist” individual. The definition of “harmful” could include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or the ill-defined “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: “The prosecution thresholds for EDOs – as originally envisaged – are worryingly low – civil, not criminal – yet the consequences of granting of such an order, even if not broken, are likely to be very serious, e.g. rendering the recipient unemployable. Few faced with such a threat are likely to have the resources to mount any defence as proceedings will be at the High Court.”
“No convincing case has been made for the necessity of new measures to restrict free speech. Existing measures are already deterring individuals and groups from engaging in open debate on important issues. The plans re-announced today, though watered down, do not sufficiently address criticism the government has received; they not only threaten to further chill legitimate speech, but may also fuel divisive ideologies and make us less safe,” said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.
3. International implications
Governments across the world – such as Russia, Turkey and Egypt – are increasingly using national security laws to censor free expression, including in the media. The government’s moves are likely to legitimise and embolden these efforts, setting a counter-productive example.
UN and regional human rights experts have jointly raised concerns regarding the potential impact of broadly defined initiatives to counter violent extremism on the free expression of minority and dissenting views. They have called for responses to violent extremism to be evidence based, and to respect international human rights law on freedom of expression and non-discrimination.
Conclusion
We call on the government to consult widely with all stakeholders, including civil society and minority groups, to ensure that a bill intended to tackle extremism does not undermine one of the values at the heart of democracy: that of free speech for all.
For more information or to arrange interviews, please contact:
– Melody Patry, head of advocacy, Index on Censorship.
[email protected]; 0207 963 7262
– Robert Sharp, head of communications, English PEN
[email protected]; 020 7324 2535
18 May 2016 | Bosnia, Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, mobile, News and features, Russia, Turkey, United Kingdom
Each week, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project verifies threats, violations and limitations faced by the media throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Here are five recent reports that give us cause for concern.
The Russian state media regulator Roskomnadzor began blocking Krym Realii, the Сrimean edition of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty on Saturday 14 May.
A representative of Roskomnadzor confirmed that the regulator had blocked a page, which contains an interview with a leader of the Tatar Mejlis, at the request of the general prosecutor office. “Currently, Roskomnadzor is implementing measures for blocking and closing this website,” criminal prosecutor Natalia Poklonskaya told Interfax.
Krym Realii was established following the annexation of Crimea to Russia. Materials on the site are published in Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar languages.
Several editors at RBC media holding lost their jobs on 13 May following a meeting between top management with journalists. They include RBC editor-in-chief Elizaveta Osetinskaya, editor-in-chief of the RBC business newspaper Maksim Solyus, and RBC deputy chief editor Roman Badanin.
In a press release, RBC underlined that the dismissals were finalised as a mutual agreement of both parties, but sources from TV-Dozhd and Reuters claim managers have bowed to political pressure from the Kremlin.
The pressure against RBC began following investigations that have reportedly “irked the Kremlin“, including one on the assets of Vladimir Putin’s alleged daughter, Ekaterina Tikhonova.
Petar Panjkota, a journalist for the Croatian commercial national broadcaster RTL, was physically assaulted after he had finished a segment from the Bosnian town Banja Luka on 14 May.
Panjkota was reporting on parallel rallies in Banja Luka, the administrative centre of Bosnia’s Serb-dominated of Republika Srpska. He was reporting on protests organised by the ruling and opposition parties of the Bosnian Serbs. When he went off air, Panjkota was punched in the head by an unidentified individual, leaving bruises.
RTL strongly condemned the attack, calling it another attack on media freedom. No information has surfaced on the identity of the assailant.
On 12 May, the long-awaited white paper on the future of the BBC was unveiled. The BBC Trust is to be abolished and replaced by a new governing board including ministerial appointees. The board will be comprised of 12 to 14 members: the chair, deputy chair and members for each of the four nations of the UK will be appointed by the government and the remaining seats will be appointed by the BBC.
“It is vital that this appointments process is clear, transparent and free from government interference to ensure that the body governing the BBC does not become simply a mouthpiece for the government,” Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, said.
“Independence from government is essential for the BBC and these proposals don’t quite offer that,” Richard Sambrook, director of the Centre for Journalism at Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies and former BBC journalist, told Index on Censorship. “There is no reason the board can’t be appointed by an arms length, independent panel. Currently the plans are too close to a state broadcasting model.”
Two reporters working for Dicle News Agency (DİHA) reporters were detained in the eastern city of Van on 12 May. Nedim Türfent and Şermin Soydan were allegedly detained within the scope of an on-going investigation and taken to the anti-terror branch in the central Edremit district of Van.
Both were detained separately. According to Bestanews website, Nedim Türfent was detained when his car was stopped by state forces at the entrance of Van. Şermin Soydan was detained on her way to cover news in the city of Van.
17 May 2016 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Middle East and North Africa, mobile, Statements, United Arab Emirates
We, the undersigned NGOs, call on the authorities to immediately release human rights defender and professor of economics Dr Nasser Bin Ghaith, who remains in detention in an unknown location in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for his social media posts and human rights activities. He has been denied proper access to his lawyer or family since his arrest in August 2015, and reportedly subject to torture in custody. The continued detention and charges violate his human rights, including his right to free expression.
On 18 August 2015, security officers in civilian clothes arrested Dr Bin Ghaith in Abu Dhabi and searched his home and confiscated personal items including electronic memory sticks. He was held incommunicado until finally being brought to the State Security Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi on 4 April 2016, when he told the court he had been tortured and beaten in detention and deprived of sleep for up to a week.
On 2 May 2016, a second hearing took place to examine charges against Dr Bin Ghaith relating to his online postings. He stated that he is still being held in secret detention, a fact he had previously brought to the judge’s attention during his hearing on 4 April. The judge refused to listen to his complaints for a second time. Neither his family nor his lawyer knows where he is being detained, and his lawyer’s request to visit him has been denied repeatedly.
Dr Bin Ghaith is one of a group of men known as the “UAE5” who were imprisoned in 2011 and tried for “publicly insulting” UAE officials. That trial also breached international human rights law and was widely criticised by human rights groups, including signatories of this letter.
Charges in the current case against Dr Bin Ghaith include allegedly “committing a hostile act against a foreign state” in reference to statements he made on Twitter about the authorities and judicial system in Egypt. He was also charged with “posting false information in order to harm the reputation and stature of the state and one of its institutions” relating to other statements he made on Twitter claiming that he had not been granted a fair trial as part of the “UAE5” case.
A further charge brought against Dr Bin Ghaith of allegedly “posting false information about UAE leaders and their policies, offensively criticizing the construction of a Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi, and instigating the people of the UAE against their leaders and government” was related to a statement he made on Twitter intending to promote tolerance.
Dr Bin Ghaith was also accused of allegedly “communicating and cooperating with members of the banned Al Islah organization” referring to visits and meetings with members of the “UAE94”, a group of government critics and advocates of reform tried jointly in 2013 and sentenced to long prison terms. He was also accused of allegedly “communicating and cooperating with” the banned Emirates Ummah Party, based on a presentation he was invited to make on the Islamic Economy by a member of the Ummah party, in his capacity as a professor of economics.
At the latest hearing on 2 May, the court ordered the case to be adjourned until 23 May when the defence’s arguments will be heard.
We, the undersigned organisations, view Dr Bin Ghaith’s arrest, detention in an unknown location and without access to his family or a lawyer, and the baseless charges brought against him as a direct result of his human rights activities and non-violent expression. His conduct is protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is considered to be reflective of binding customary international law. These charges, taken in the context of other charges against non-violent political groups and human rights defenders, appears to be an attempt by authorities to stifle any criticism, dissent or activities promoting human rights in the UAE.
We call on the UAE authorities to:
Immediately and unconditionally release Dr Bin Ghaith and drop all charges against him;
Pending the above, immediately disclose his current location and ensure proper access to his family, counsel and any medical treatment he may require;
Ensure that if his case proceeds, that it does so in a manner consistent with the UAE’s obligations under international law, in particular internationally recognised standards of due process and fair trial;
Investigate reports of torture and ill-treatment in detention;
and provide justice for those responsible and effective redress to Dr Bin Ghaith;
Sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and bring all national laws into compliance with international freedom of expression standards.
Signed
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
ARTICLE 19
CIVICUS
FIDH, within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Front Line Defenders
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Index on Censorship
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Scholars at Risk Network
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
