7 Aug 2017 | Bahrain, Bahrain Statements, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Nabeel Rajab, BCHR – winner of Bindmans Award for Advocacy at the Index Freedom of Expression Awards 2012 with then-Chair of the Index on Censorship board of trustees Jonathan Dimbleby
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s silence on the sentencing of human rights figure Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain has been called “appalling” in a letter to the Foreign Secretary, signed by 17 rights groups & parliamentarians today.
The President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights faces trial tomorrow, 7 August, for tweeting about the Yemen war and torture in Bahrain. He faces up to 15 years. He was sentenced in absentia following an unfair trial to two years in prison for giving media interviews on 10 July. Rajab has not been allowed to speak to his family since 15 July. Rajab has been held largely in solitary confinement in the first nine months of his detention. This led to his health deteriorating in April, and he is currently recovering in the Ministry of Interior clinic.
Despite British Embassy representatives regularly attending Rajab’s trials, the 10 July sentence, which clearly violated his freedom of expression, went unremarked on for over two weeks. On 26 July, the FCO stated in response to a parliamentary question: “We note the two year sentence given to him and understand there are further steps in the judicial process, including the right of appeal.”
The letter, signed by 17 rights groups says: “It is appalling that while the FCO recognises the brave work of human rights defenders worldwide, it has turned a blind eye to the human rights abuses in Bahrain, including the reprisals against Mr. Rajab.” They raise the FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Report, published last month, which applauds the work of human rights defenders globally and state that silence on Rajab’s case contradicts policies to support human rights defenders.
The FCO’s response evaded providing an opinion on Rajab’s sentence and compares unfavourably with its response to a previous sentence Rajab received in 2012 on similar charges related to his expression. At that time, Middle East Minister Alistair Burt stated he was “very concerned” at the sentencing of Mr. Rajab on charges related to his free expression, and added, “I have made it clear to the Bahraini authorities that the human and civil rights of peaceful opposition figures must be respected.” Burt was reshuffled out of the Foreign Office in 2013, but reappointed Middle East Minister following the June election.
The rights groups told the Foreign Secretary today: “British silence on this case contradicts FCO support for human rights defenders internationally and the FCO’s own past record on Mr. Rajab’s case. We urge you to overturn this policy of silence and support Nabeel Rajab and all human rights defenders in Bahrain … by condemning his sentence and calling on the Government of Bahrain for his immediate and unconditional release and the dropping of all pending charges against him.”
While the UK was initially silent on Rajab’s sentence, key allies of Bahrain including the United States and the European Union as well as Germany and Norway all called for Rajab’s release shortly after the ruling. The US, EU and Norway called for Rajab’s release, and Germany deplored his sentence. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ office called for his unconditional release.
“The FCO’s weak language on Nabeel Rajab’s case falls in line with the UK’s overall disappointing position on free expression in Bahrain and more widely in the Gulf. Boris Johnson should call for Rajab’s immediate release and take broader steps to ensure that human rights – not just arms sales – are a priority in the UK’s relations with Bahrain and the other Gulf states”, said Rebecca Vincent, UK Bureau Director for Reporters Without Borders.
“Instead of working with civil society and human rights defenders to address systemic problems and reform in Bahrain, as it has previously committed to, the government of Bahrain continues to persecute human rights defenders like Nabeel Rajab simply for exercising their right and duty to promote and protect human rights,” said Andrew Anderson, Executive Director of Front Line Defenders.
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Director of Advocacy, Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy: “Boris Johnson should be ashamed of his isolated policy, which is at total odds with the foreign policy of all Bahrain western allies and partners. True partners should speak out to their allies when they cross the line. The Bahraini government’s abuses don’t seem to matter to Boris Johnson’s Foreign Office, which only appears to be vocal against repression when it’s by governments that don’t host the Royal Navy or trade with the UK.”
The letter was signed by Article 19, English PEN, FIDH, Front Line Defenders, Index on Censorship, the Jimmy Wales Foundation, PEN International, Reporters Without Borders and World Organisation Against Torture, alongside the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Gulf Centre for Human Rights and European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights. The letter was also signed by Sue Willman, Director of Deighton Pierce Glynn, Julie Ward MEP and Tom Brake MP.
The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales is also separately seeking an urgent meeting with the Foreign Secretary to raise concerns over the treatment of human rights defenders in Bahrain and about the breaches of freedom of expression and fair trial and due process in Nabeel Rajab’s case.
“The trial in absence and subsequent imprisonment of Nabeel Rajab was in flagrant breach of his rights to a fair trial process. The criminalisation of Nabeel Rajeb – for sharing an opinion – is contrary to international rights and protections of freedom of expression. Whilst Mr. Rajab’s health continues to deteriorate, due his treatment in prison, this case stands as a sad indictment of Bahrain’s attitude to citizens who voice criticism. It is not too late for proper due process to be applied in this case; this would result in Mr. Rajab’s immediate release,” said Kirsty Brimelow QC of Doughty Street Chambers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1502100162408-9703f46f-9b77-3″ taxonomies=”716″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
7 Aug 2017 | Academic Freedom, Campaigns, News and features, South Africa
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]David Benatar, a professor of philosophy and head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town, was one of the proponents behind the invitation to journalist Flemming Rose, the editor responsible for publishing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, to deliver the 2016 TB Davie Memorial Lecture on academic freedom. The invitation to Rose was rescinded by the university because Rose’s appearance might provoke conflict on campus, pose security risks and might “retard rather than advance academic freedom on campus.” In a guest post, Benatar, writing here in a personal capacity, shares his thoughts on the 2017 lecture. [/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”81181″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]In 2016, the executive of the University of Cape Town in South Africa overrode its academic freedom committee’s invitation to Flemming Rose to deliver the annual TB Davie academic freedom lecture. Mr Rose was disinvited over the protestations of the then members of the academic freedom committee. The irony of preventing a speaker from delivering an academic freedom lecture seems to have been lost on the university’s leadership, with the vice-chancellor, Dr Max Price, publicly defending the decision to disinvite.
Like all campus censors, Dr Price professed his commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression before justifying his violation of these very principles. His arguments were roundly criticised by some. Other members of the university community supported the decision he and his colleagues had taken, which is part of a broader institutional pathology that, so far as I can tell, is even more pervasive than otherwise similar pathologies at various universities in North America and Europe.
The TB Davie Memorial Lecture was established in 1959 by students at the University of Cape Town. It is named after Thomas Benjamin Davie, vice-chancellor of the university from 1948 until his death in 1955. Dr Davie vigorously defended academic freedom against the apartheid regime’s imposition of racial segregation on higher education in South Africa, a battle that was ultimately unsuccessful.
A preface to printed versions of some past lectures in the series says that the “TB Davie Memorial Lecture keeps before the university a reminder of its ethical duty to defend and to seek to extend academic freedom”. The events of 2016 demonstrate that reminders are insufficient. One can remember the duty without fully understanding it, and one can understand it without having the courage to discharge it. Courage is needed to protect unpopular speech and speakers, not to protect orthodox views and their purveyors.
There have been some developments to this sad saga. First the good news: The South African Institute of Race Relations, upon hearing of the disinvitation of Mr Rose, invited him to South Africa to deliver the annual Hoernle lecture, which he did without incident in both Johannesburg and Cape Town in May 2017. While in South Africa, Mr Rose also spoke at the University of Cape Town, albeit unannounced and in a small class at the invitation of a single professor. There he addressed and had a pleasant and respectful exchange with the students.
The bad news is that the academic freedom committee’s term of office ended soon after Mr Rose was disinvited. The committee’s expression of outrage over the disinvitation was its final act. There is some reason to think that this committee’s stand on the Flemming Rose matter galvanised the dominant regressive sector of the university in a way that influenced how the committee was repopulated for the new term of office.
The result is an academic freedom committee that, on the whole, is significantly tamed. For example, the new members of the committee include somebody who had criticised the earlier invitation to Mr. Rose and someone else who had claimed that “human dignity and civility trumps” freedom of speech. It is thus a committee that is much less likely to highlight or object to the many threats to academic freedom and freedom of expression within the university. It is also a committee that is unlikely to test the university’s commitment to these values by, for example, its choice of speakers for future TB Davie lectures.
It was unsurprising that the new committee has shown no signs of endorsing the six separate nominations it received for Mr Rose to deliver the 2018 lecture. Nor is it surprising that it invited Professor Mahmood Mamdani to deliver the 2017 lecture. (Although Professor Mamdani, now at Columbia University, but at one stage a professor at the University of Cape Town, has had his disagreements with the University of Cape Town, his criticisms are the staples of the university’s self-flagellation and thus very far from a test of freedom of expression.)
I wrote to Professor Mamdani on 2 April 2017 to advise him of the events of 2016 and to ask him to refuse to give this lecture until such time as Mr Rose is permitted to give his. In my email, I acknowledged that he, Professor Mamdani, “might use the opportunity of the TB Davie lecture to criticise the university for having disinvited Mr Rose”, but that it would be far more effective if he refused to give the lecture. I said that until “Mr Rose’s disinvitation is reversed, the TB Davie lecture will be a farce”.
About a dozen other members of the university community, mainly academic staff, subsequently wrote to him to endorse my request. To the best of my knowledge, none of us have received a response, and the lecture is scheduled to take place on 22 August. Until Professor Mamdani gives his lecture, we cannot be sure what he will say. However, his failure either to withdraw from the lecture or to reassure those who had written to him that he would be taking a stand against the disinvitation of Mr Rose does not augur well.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ show_filter=”yes” element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1502096677412-aee0a1d7-4cdb-4″ taxonomies=”4524, 8562″ filter_source=”category”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
7 Aug 2017 | Uncategorized
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]From: David Benatar
Subject: TB Davie Memorial Lecture
Date: 02 April 2017 at 12:49:25 AM SAST
To: Mahmood Mamdani
Dear Professor Mamdani
I understand that you are scheduled to give the TB Davie Memorial Lecture this year. This named lecture, as you know, is devoted to the theme of academic freedom and freedom more generally. What you might not know is that the 2016 lecture was going to be given by Mr. Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper and notable defender of freedom of expression. However, the University Executive, over the protestations of the then-members of the Academic Freedom Committee disinvited Mr Rose because they perceived him as a controversial speaker. I responded to this ironic and outrageous breach of academic freedom here: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/uct-a-blow-against-academic-freedom
The Academic Freedom Committee’s term of office came to an end at around this time and the new committee has invited you to be the speaker in 2017. While it is possible that you might use the opportunity of the TB Davie lecture to criticise the University for having disinvited Mr Rose, it would be far more effective if you and other potential speakers in future years refused to give the lecture. Until Mr Rose’s disinvitation is reversed, the TB Davie lecture will be a farce. Thus I urge you to indicate to the Academic Freedom Committee that you will not deliver a TB Davie lecture until Mr Rose has been allowed to deliver the lecture he was invited to give.
Yours sincerely,
David Benatar[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1501498075189-5ba0ae4f-e1a9-10″ taxonomies=”16315, 4524, 8562″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
6 Aug 2017 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
What is the place of the satirist in our age of controversies? The irreverent cartoonist Martin Rowson, of The Guardian and Index on Censorship magazine, joins publisher Joanna Prior of Penguin Random House for what promises to be a coruscating conversation; feathers will no doubt be ruffled.
This event is in association with Pembroke College as part of Banned Books Week and will be introduced by Index CEO Jodie Ginsberg.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Speakers:[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89693″ img_size=”500×300″ alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Martin Rowson is a British editorial cartoonist and writer. His genre is political satire and his style is scathing and graphic. He characterizes his work as “visual journalism”. His cartoons appear frequently in The Guardian, the Daily Mirror and Index on Censorship magazine.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”95149″ img_size=”500×300″ alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Joanna Prior is the managing director of Penguin General Books, president of the Publishers Association, chair of the Women’s Prize for Fiction Board and was also listed in this years Debrett’s 500 which recognises Britain’s 500 most influential people[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80210″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Jody Ginsberg is the chief executive officer at Index on Censorship. A former Thomson Reuters Bureau chief for UK and Ireland, she has worked as a foreign correspondent in south and west Africa. Her advocacy roles include the London think tank Demos and Cambridge-based Camfed.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Sunday 24 September 2017, 2-4pm BST
Where: Old Library, Pembroke College, Cambridge Map
Tickets: Free. Registration required via Eventbrite
[/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:1502378369094-a532cc98-4426-8″ taxonomies=”5844″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
