[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”This is the fourth in a series of articles exploring media freedom drawn from the archives of Index on Censorship magazine. In one of barrister Sir John Mortimer’s last interviews before he died in January 2009, he talked to Index on Censorship about the notorious Oz trial of 1971, as well as Gay News and Inside Linda Lovelace, two other publications he defended. Here we reproduce that interview. Oz was a satirical, underground magazine founded in Australia in the 1960s. The editors of the London edition – Richard Neville, Jim Anderson and Felix Dennis – were prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act in 1971 for an issue edited by teenagers. ” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
Index: What were the grounds for prosecution?
John Mortimer: Well, it was sort of the birth of that particular Obscene Publications Act [1959], which was Roy Jenkins’s doing [Jenkins was a principal sponsor of the bill as a backbench MP]. It was meant to be liberalising because it allowed defences of literary merit and scientific merit and all sorts of “bits” of merit. It was a test of that and the Obscene Publications Act, which was meant to be a work of great liberality. It would test obscenity, which was something that would tend to deprave and corrupt the people who were likely to read it. But then there were numerous defences –– that it was of literary merit or historical merit or scientific merit and so on. It seemed rather strange you could be depraved and corrupted, and on the other hand you knew more about history –– that could be a defence. So it never ever seemed to me to be a particularly sensible piece of legislation.
Index: What did you think of it first of all, when you discovered what the charges were?
John Mortimer: It was the schoolkids Oz and nobody wanted to do it. Everybody turned it down. They thought it was disgraceful, defending the schoolkids Oz like that. Numerous QCs turned it down.
Index: What were your tactics for defence? What did you think was the best
way to tackle it?
John Mortimer: In any such case, make it funny, try and make it funny. Then there was Geoffrey Robertson. He was at that time a student at Oxford. But he was Australian, so he knew them all [the Oz editors] very well. He came and was a great help and was very good at
looking up the law.
Index: When you gave your opening speech, you talked about this case “standing at the crossroads of liberty”. Did you think that it was going to be a very important case?
John Mortimer: Yes, I suppose I did. I thought it was a very confused Act of Parliament, which I still do.
Index: Why did you think it was confused?
John Mortimer: Because you could be depraved and corrupted and yet you could be improved and get off. And I think the idea of being depraved and corrupted by a book is . . . nobody’s ever said what that really meant.
Reporters working to share the truth are being harassed, intimidated and prosecuted – across the globe.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1490025163341{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/newspapers.jpg?id=50885) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Index: Geoffrey Robertson described the trial as a ‘collision of cultural incomprehension’ – the fusty old establishment not remotely understanding the 1960s alternative culture. Did you see it like that yourself?
John Mortimer: I don’t know. I suppose it was –– but I don’t suppose the people out on the street really cared one way or the other.
Index: But in terms of the witnesses you called, when one looks at that –– George Melly, John Peel, Felix Topolski –– it reads like a sort of roll call of the artists and musicians of the day. So in that sense it almost became an arena for the defence of popular culture.
John Mortimer: Yes, if you can call it popular culture. The real thought about the whole case was that the magazine was a load of rubbish. We weren’t defending anything with any particular merit really. We were defending a principle I suppose –– that you shouldn’t have any censorship, that nobody should tell you what to read or write. It’s entirely your own business.
Index: And do you think that the ultimate success of the trial actually was a big step forward in changing that attitude?
John Mortimer: Yes. Well, if it had been lost entirely it would have been a big step back, I suppose. But there had been a lot of cases before that. There had been Fanny Hill [a new paperback edition was banned in the UK in 1963].
Index: What did you think of the judge [Michael Argyle QC]? He gave you a
hard time.
John Mortimer: The judge was an idiot. We gave the judge a harder time than he gave us. The judge was a total buffoon. It started off with a hilarious thing . . . I got there every morning and the prosecutor came and pushed his way past my knees and said, “Give us a kiss, darling.” I said, “Come on, get on with prosecuting then.”
Index: Do you think he was enjoying himself?
John Mortimer: Yes, I suppose everybody enjoyed themselves. There was an
usher who had been the judge’s sergeant major or something in the army and he called him sergeant major all the time. And then John Peel gave evidence and said that he’d once had venereal disease and after he’d given evidence the usher went up to the judge and said, “I broke the glass what that witness drunk out of, Sir. I thought you would approve.” And the judge said, “Well, yes, well done, sergeant major.”
Index: In your famous summing up you said, “To gag a little cheeky criticism to suppress some lavatory humour, we have had rolled out before us the majestic engine of the law.”
John Mortimer: “Since we’ve been sitting here, wars have been started, revolutions have taken place . . .” and all we’d done was go through a little children’s magazine. The wording was fatal to it, that’s why we won the appeal. The judge had said, “Don’t you find it disgusting, don’t you find it embarrassing, don’t you find it offensive?” The only test under the Act is whether something can deprave or corrupt the likely readers. So he misdirected the jury in thinking they could convict just because they found it offensive or unpleasant or shocking or whatever. That was the grounds for the appeal.
One of the judges [in the appeal] sent his clerk down to Soho and found many much more shocking magazines. But really we won the appeal on the basis that the judge [Michael Argyle] had allowed the jury to think that they could convict just because they were shocked or distressed or made unhappy or whatever . . . whereas the only crime under which they could be convicted was that it was liable to deprave or corrupt.
Index: The other big thing that came out after the trial was the incredible corruption amongst the police in Soho –– that while they were pursuing Oz the police were in league with the pornographers. [Home Secretary] Reginald Maudling apparently was very upset at the criticism, with people saying: why are the police going after the small fry, but they’re letting the hardcore pornographers go? Do you think ultimately the success of the appeal began to move the boundaries in terms of attitudes to obscenity?
John Mortimer: Yes, I suppose. There was also The Little Red Schoolbook, which we lost [a sexually explicit guide to challenging authority for kids, also
prosecuted for obscenity in 1971].
Index: And Inside Linda Lovelace, which you won [the publisher of the porn star Linda Lovelace’s autobiography was acquitted in 1976]. So all the cases came to you.
John Mortimer: There was a wonderful moment with Linda Lovelace. There was a description of when she was dangled from the ceiling on an electric . . . rubber . . . like you know, you wind it round and round like a model airplane. So she was on that, and she was slowly lowered down onto the gentleman who would be lying on his back. So when she arrived on top of him she was twiddling around very fast like a model aeroplane. There was a doctor in the witness box at the time, telling the jury what a terrible effect that reading such a thing would have on a 13-year-old schoolgirl. And I looked at the judge and he was giggling so much he had to hide his face in his notebook. So I said to the members of the jury, “Would you think it would have any different effect on a 13-year-old schoolgirl than that which it is now clearly having on a 73-year-old judge?” So we got off on that. That was probably near the end of it.
And then we had another great case, Gay News, in which Mary Whitehouse prayed in the court [Whitehouse brought a private prosecution for blasphemous libel in 1976]. And she prayed in the corridor while the jury was out. And the judge wrote in his autobiography that he felt the hand of
God writing his summing up for him.
Index: Do you think people have got any more sensible?
John Mortimer: Yes. You would have expected when Mrs Thatcher came into power that there would be more of those [cases], but they just stopped.
Index: Are you surprised that the Obscene Publications Act hasn’t been reformed in any way?
John Mortimer: No, I think the general public are quite in favour of censorship.
Index: Sixty years on from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 60 years on
from Article 19, the right to free speech, do you think we’re in quite a healthy place?
John Mortimer: No, I think we’re in a very unhealthy place, due to the Labour Party. [There are] all these ridiculous things you can’t say –– such as that revolution might be a good thing. I don’t think we have any firm grasp of any principles.
Index: So even though we now have the European Convention enshrined in English law, do you think perhaps our freedom of speech is less protected?
John Mortimer: Well certainly, it has sort of become less protected, hasn’t it? I think the principle, I think the abiding principle, which was that you lived in a country where you could read anything you like – I think that principle is being shaken up by the Labour Party really, and hasn’t been properly reaffirmed, I would say.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1490888472503-9dd755ac-1c93-9″ taxonomies=”9044″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Danger in truth: truth in danger” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2016%2F05%2Fdanger-in-truth-truth-in-danger%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The summer 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at why journalists around the world face increasing threats.
In the issue: articles by journalists Lindsey Hilsum and Jean-Paul Marthoz plus Stephen Grey.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80569″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/05/danger-in-truth-truth-in-danger/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
Civil liberties groups call for transparency and evidence-based policy after MEE reveals details of Google’s counter-extremism work for Home Office. Read the full article
Rahim Haciyev, acting editor-in-chief of 2014 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Journalism Award-winning Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)
Civil, political and human rights are harshly restricted and frequently violated in Azerbaijan. Independent and critical journalists frequently find themselves — or their families — targeted.
Rahim Haciyev, acting editor in chief of the Index Award-winning independent newspaper Azadliq, was forced to flee Azerbaijan after years of official harassment. The government has repeatedly cracked-down on dissent.
Haciyev wrote to Index on Censorship from exile in a western European country:
I’m very sorry that the repressive policy of the Azerbaijani authorities against the Azadliq newspaper forced me to leave the country.
After the arrest of the newspaper’s financial director Faig Amirli, the authorities soon stopped issuing a print version. Amirli was arrested on obviously fabricated charges. I was summoned several times to the prosecutor’s office several times to testify about the paper’s financial affairs. The prosecutors said that this was connected with the criminal case of Amirli, but are invesitgating him under charges of “inciting religious hatred” and “violating the rights of citizens under the pretext of conducting religious rights”.
It turned out that they were interested in the financial issues of the newspaper in order to find a way to silence it. In addition, several employees of the newspaper were summoned for questioning. Then a court ordered tax authorities to comb through the paper’s financial activities. It’s clear that this was undertaken to increase pressure on the newspaper and me personally.
Aiming to cripple Azadliq, the government-owned distribution company was ordered to withhold circulation receipts — $84,000. So we weren’t able to print or even pay our bills. Three staffers are in prison — Seymur Hezi, Faig Amirli and Elchin. Each of them had sharply criticised the lawlessness and corruption of Azerbaijani officials.
In February, 11 Azadliq employees were summoned to the prosecutor’s offices to be interrogated again. Several government agencies increased their pressure on the newspaper’s online operation.
I had been warned twice in the past two years by the prosecutor general’s office that under my leadership Azadliq had been slandering Azerbaijani authorities. In their notices I was told that failure to comply with their terms would mean legal repercussions for me. But I refused. The newspaper continued to report on corruption, abuses of power and the absence of the rule of law. We were devoted to pursuing the truth.
And that is why the authorities intensified repression against the newspaper. Now this lawlessness has forced me to leave the country.
This decision was extremely difficult. I am cut off from my family and friends. I have two children and don’t know when I will see them again.
But despite all the problems I will continue to work daily for the newspaper’s website.
It’s my job, this is my job, this is my life.
Rahim Haciyev
Acting Editor-in-Chief, Azadliq
Haciyev is just one of the many journalists who have been targeted by Azerbaijani authorities in recent years. The country is ranked 163rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2016 World Press Freedom Index, which ranks 180 countries according to the level of freedom available to journalists. Almost everyone who speaks out against the regime of President Ilham Aliyev, including journalists, human rights defenders, activists and bloggers, are commonly imprisoned on spurious charges, such as drug and weapon possession, hooliganism and tax evasion. Reports of torture and abuse are typical by those being detained. At least 15 Azerbaijani prisoners of conscience currently remain in jail, including:[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Mehman Huseynov (Twitter)
Mehman Huseynov, an Azerbaijani journalist and pro-opposition blogger, was sentenced to two years in jail on 3 March by a Baku court for defaming the police chief of the city’s Nasimi district. Huseynov intends to appeal his sentencing. According to Front Line Defenders, a group of police officers violently attacked Huseynov on 9 January. The next he was brought to court, found guilty of disobeying police orders and fined 200 manat (£96). [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Founder and editor of online news portal Kend.info Elchin Ismayilli was arrested on 17 February on charges of “extorting money” and “aggravated abuse of a position of influence”. According to the Caucasian Knot, he was also accused of blackmailing a local office, charges he insists were fabricated to silence his coverage of local corruption and human rights violations. On 18 February, Ismayilli was sentenced to a pre-trial detention period of 24 days. He has previously been subject to multiple arrests and cases of harassment related to his work as a journalist.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
On 3 March, a court decided to prolong the period of investigation of Faig Amirli for three months, the Azerbaijan Press Agency reported. Amirli, financial director of newspaper and assistant chairman of the Azerbaijani Popular Front Party (APFP), was arrested on 20 August 2016 for “inciting religious hatred” and “violating the rights of citizens under the pretext of conducting religious rights,” according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Writer and blogger Rashad Ramazanov was arrested on 9 May 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison. According to English PEN, his charges included “illegal possession and sale of drugs”. Police claimed to have found nine grams of heroin on his body, although Ramazanov insists that the drugs were planted by the officers, who he claims also beat him up and tortured him during interrogation. Ramazanov was sentenced to nine years in prison in November 2013 on a trumped-up drug trafficking charge. PEN International reported that on 23 January Ramazanov was moved to solitary confinement for 15 days, the reason for which remains unknown. On 7 February Ramazanov was released from solitary confinement, and his family was given permission to visit him.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Founder and editor of the website Azel, Afgan Sadygov, was sentenced on 12 January to 2.5 years in jail. Sadygov was arrested on 22 November 2016 based on accusations of “hooliganism” after he was attacked on 9 August 2016 and allegedly hit a woman, Contact Online news reported. Sadygov’s website often reports on issues such as poor infrastructure maintenance, bad quality of roads and waste of public funds in Azerbaijan’s Jalilabad region.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Seymur Hezi
According to MeydanTV, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of Seymur Hezi, reporter for opposition news source Azadliq and presenter for critical TV program “Azerbaycan Saati” on 13 April. The journalist was sentenced to five years in prison on 29 January 2015 on a trumped-up charge of aggravated hooliganism, Index on Censorship reported. The charge came after Hezi was attacked on 29 August by Maherram Hasanov, a complete stranger, and defended himself. Hezi has accused President Ilham Aliyev and chief of staff Ramiz Mehdyev of ordering his arrest.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
The lawyer of Nijat Aliyev, former chief editor of religious website Azadxeber.org, has not been able to get hold of the text of the verdict of the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan for his client, Contact Online news reported. Aliyev’s lawyer believes that the delay has been intentional in order to prevent the filing of a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, Contact Online news reported. According to IRFS, Aliyev was detained on 20 May 2012 and sentenced to 10 years in prison on 9 December 2013 on charges of illegal possession of drugs and weapons, incitement of religious hatred, calls to seize power and distributing banned religious literature. Aliyev’s website previously published criticisms of the government’s policies in regards to religion, the possibility of a LGBT parade in Baku and the allotment of too much funding for the Eurovision Song Contest in 2012, OCCRP reported.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Russian-Israeli travel blogger Alexander Lapshin was extradited from Belarus to Azerbaijan on 7 February. He faces up to five years in prison on charges of “public calls against the state” and “unauthorised crossing of borders,” according to Armenian News Agency ArmenPress. These charges came after Lapshin traveled to the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and sympathised in his blog entries with the Armenians he met, GlobalResearch reported. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Fikrat Faramazoglu, editor-in-chief of news website jam.az, has been detained since 30 June 2016 on the charge of extortion by means of threats, which is punishable by up to five years in prison. According to Azerbaijan Free Expression Platform, these charges originated when a local restaurant owner accused Faramazoglu of extorting money from him when asked to remove defamatory articles about the restaurant on websites owned by the journalist.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Blogger and social media activist Abdul Abilov has been imprisoned since 22 November 2013. According to Azerbaijan Free Expression Platform, Abilov was charged with illegal possession, storage and manufacturing or sale of drugs when authorities claim to have found illegal drugs in his home and on his person, which Abilov continues to protest were planted on him. On 27 May 2014 Abilov was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison. Stop Sycophants!, the Facebook page previously run by Abilov, was shut down following his arrest, IRFS reported. The page was known to strongly criticise authorities.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Established in 2003, the LGBT organisation Arcoiris, meaning “rainbow” in Spanish, works on all levels of Honduran society to advance basic rights. Honduras has seen an explosion in levels of homophobic violence since the military coup in 2009. Working against this tide, Arcoiris provides support to many LGBT victims of violence, run awareness initiatives, promote HIV prevention programmes and directly lobby the Honduran government and police force. Its tactics are diverse and often inventive. Between June 2015 and March 2016, six members of Arcoiris were killed for this work. Many others have faced intimidation, harassment, physical attacks or been forced to flee the country.
“All our campaigns have been well received and have enabled families to get a bit closer to their diverse sons and daughters,”Arcoiris coordinator Donny Reyes says.
“I’ve been imprisoned on many occasions. I’ve suffered torture and sexual violence because of my activism, and I’ve survived many assassination attempts,” he said, in an interview with Index on Censorship in April 2016. The activist had spent a year in exile and on his return feared he would be attacked and killed. However, he felt obliged to return to Honduras to fight homophobia and transphobia.
Many LGBT activists in Honduras share Reyes’ fears as dozens are murdered each year, with killers rarely facing justice.
In the second half of 2015 alone, Arcoiris reported 15 security incidents against its members, including surveillance, harassment, arbitrary detentions, assaults, robberies, theft, threats, sexual assault and even murder. Other LGBT activists have experienced forced evictions, fraudulent charges, defamation, enforced disappearances and restrictions of right to assembly.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
