21 Nov 2018 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
21 November 2018
To the attention of:
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, Ms Federica Mogherini,
EU Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, Mr Johannes Hahn,
We, the undersigned organisations, urge the addressed European Union (EU) officials to discuss Turkey’s freedom of expression crisis and fractured rule of law during their high-level political dialogue with the Turkish government on 22 November 2018.
More than 160 journalists are imprisoned in Turkey today, with hundreds more on trial for exercising their right to freedom of expression. In 2018, the World Press Freedom Index ranked Turkey as 157 out of 180 countries, on the basis of the level of freedom available to journalists. Since 2016, Turkey’s position in the index has progressively decreased from 151 in 2016 and 155 in 2017. Journalists and media outlets are mostly targeted on charges of affiliation with, membership of, or propaganda for a terrorist organisation, charges mostly linked to the attempted coup of July 2016. Despite the lifting of a two-year-long state of emergency on 18 July 2018, and its replacement with similarly restricting legislation, such attacks are still taking place. Just last week, on 16 November 2018, in a targeted operation against civil society,13 people including academics, journalists and lawyers were arrested on suspicions of similar charges, some of whom were subsequently released under judicial control.
Following the attempted coup in July 2016, the Turkish authorities cracked down on independent press and journalists, resulting in widespread closures of media outlets, dismissal of 10,000 media workers and mass prosecutions of journalists. The Turkish judicial system has thus far failed to provide redress in these cases, a further sign of the deterioration of the rule of law in Turkey.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) response to this situation has been weak until now: focusing on the need to exhaust domestic remedies as a principle of admissibility of cases before the Court, and failing to fully recognise the impact of the repression of which Turkish journalists and civil society are the victims. Where ECtHR rulings on journalists have been made they have been blatantly ignored and not implemented by the Turkish authorities. Newly introduced legislation in Turkey, dovetailing in many cases provisions concerning purportedly temporary and exceptional measures introduced under the state of emergency in order to respond to the attempted coup, also casts a shadow over respect for human rights in the country.
We remind you that pursuant to the Treaties, the European Union’s “aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples” and that “in its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests”, including contributing to the protection of human rights. Given the mandate of your roles within the European Union’s system, we urge you to include the above-mentioned issues at the heart of your conversation with the Turkish government during the high-level political dialogue planned in Ankara on 22 November 2018. In particular, we request you to engage with Turkish authorities with a view to agreeing on concrete actions aimed at the protection of journalists and human rights defenders in Turkey, for the respect of the right to freedom of expression in Turkey. Finally, we demand that the EU stresses the need for Turkey to concretely improve its respect for the rule of law and human rights, as a prerequisite for a further deepening of the EU-Turkey relationship.
Yours sincerely,
Article 19
International Press Institute
European Federation of Journalists
Index on Censorship
Reporters Without Borders
Pen International
English Pen
Norwegian Pen
Articolo 21
cc.
Mr Pier Antonio Panzeri, Chair of the European Parliament’s Human Rights Committee European Parliament Rue Wiertz Altiero Spinelli 15G205 1047 Brussels
Mr David McAllister, Chair of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee European Parliament Rue Wiertz
Altiero Spinelli 15G205 1047 Brussels
Mr Christian Berger, Head of EU Delegation in Turkey Büyükesat Mahallesi Uğur Mumcu Cd. No:88 06700 Çankaya/Ankara Turkey
19 Nov 2018 | News and features, Youth Board
Each youth advisory board sits for six months, has the chance to participate in monthly videoconferencing discussions about current freedom of expression issues from around the world and the opportunity to write blog posts on Index’s website.
The next youth board is currently being recruited. The next youth advisory board will sit from January to July 2019.
We are looking for enthusiastic young people, aged between 16-25, who must be committed to taking part in monthly meetings, which are held online with fellow participants. Applicants can be based anywhere in the world. We are looking for people who are communicative and who will be in regular touch with Index.
Applications include:
- Cover letter
- CV
- 250-word blog post about any free speech issue
Applications can be submitted to Lewis Jennings at [email protected]. The deadline for applications is 19 December at 11:59pm GMT.
What is the youth advisory board?
The youth board is a specially selected group of young people aged 16-25 who will advise and inform Index on Censorship’s work, support our ambition to fight for free expression around the world and ensure our engagement with issues with tomorrow’s leaders.
Why does Index have a youth board?
Index on Censorship is committed to fighting censorship not only now, but also in future generations, and we want to ensure that the realities and challenges experienced by young people in today’s world are properly reflected in our work.
Index is also aware that there are many who would like to commit some or all of their professional lives to fighting for human rights and the youth board is our way of supporting the broadest range of young people to develop their voice, find paths to freely expressing it and potential future employment in the human rights, media and arts sectors.
What does the youth board do?
Board members meet once a month via Zoom to discuss the most pressing freedom of expression issues. During the meeting members will be given a monthly task to complete. There are also opportunities to get involved with events such as debates and workshops for our work with young people as well as our annual Freedom of Expression Awards and Index magazine launches.
How do people get on the youth board?
Each youth board will sit for a six-month term. Current board members are invited to reapply up to one time. The board will be selected by Index on Censorship in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with our commitment to promoting diversity. We usually recruit for board members during May and November each year. Follow @IndexCensorship on Twitter or subscribe to our Facebook feed to watch for the announcements.
Why join the Index on Censorship youth advisory board?
You will be associated with a media and human rights organisation and have the opportunity to discuss issues you feel strongly about with Index and peers from around the world. At each board meeting, we will also give you the chance to speak to someone senior within Index or the media/human rights/arts sectors, helping you to develop your knowledge and extend your personal networks. You’ll also be featured on our website.
19 Nov 2018 | Artistic Freedom, News and features, Risks, Rights and Reputations
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
“Art doesn’t divide society, it reveals division,” said Julia Farrington, Index on Censorship’s associate arts producer, at a Risks, Rights & Reputations session at the Young Vic theatre in London on 15 November.
RRR is a training programme developed by Index, What Next? and Cause4 to help art and cultural leaders understand and challenge a risk-averse culture and incorporate these topics within their organisations.
The event kicked off with guests giving a three-worded description of what risk means to them. “Vulnerable”, “essential” and “unavoidable” were among the recurring submissions.
The discussion centred on freedom of expression and the police. Farrington talked about the artist Mimsy’s piece ISIS Threaten Sylvania, which satirically depicts Sylvanian families being terrorised by ISIS through the representation of children’s toys. The artwork was removed from the Passion for Freedom exhibition at London’s Mall Gallery in September 2015 after the artist was given an ultimatum to pay £36,000 for six nights of security protection or to take it down. His decision was clear.
Guidance from the College of Policing recommends artists to take precautionary steps before making a piece of controversial artwork public. First, an artist should seek the upper-most authority and explain their artwork beforehand to avoid cancellation. Then, they should communicate with the local police. There are other actions an artist can take in these situations like have lawyer involvement, but the most effective is to share the artwork in advance to authorities.
Speaking alongside Farrington were Diane Morgan, director of Nitrobeat, and Helen Jenkins, a consultant for Cause4. Morgan held a segment on how organisations can manage difficult subjects, including dialogue and engagement.
In the last segment, Jenkins, who has over 20 years experience in fundraising, talked about raising money ethically and the importance of a trustee’s duty to protect their organisation: if funding is coming from an unethical or compromising source, should the organisation reconsider accepting?
These three voices combined into one vital day of training for CEOs and trustees on navigating the rights and responsibilities of art and dealing the daunting, risky and time-consuming environment that comes with working with sensitive art.
Photographs by Leah Asmelash[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1542885576234-b6a1fb2f-e5c5-7″ include=”103773,103772,103771,103760,103762,103763,103764,103769,103774,103768,103766,103765″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Nov 2018 | Campaigns -- Featured, Counter Terrorism, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The government’s Prevent strategy – which forms one strand of the government’s overarching counter terrorism strategy, CONTEST – seeks to pre-empt acts of terrorism by identifying those at risk of committing such attacks, including by ‘intervening to stop people moving…from extremism into terrorist-related activity’.
Developed without a firm evidence base and rooted in a vague and expansive definition of ‘extremism’, Prevent has been widely criticised for fostering discrimination against people of Muslim faith or background and chilling legitimate expression. [1]
There have been repeated calls to establish an independent review of the Prevent strategy. [2] Three UN independent experts have called on the United Kingdom to launch an independent review of Prevent that incorporates a comprehensive assessment of its impact on human rights. [3]
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill is currently passing through the House of Lords. Amendments 57 and 57A would require an independent review of Prevent.
We urge members of the House of Lords to support these amendments and take this opportunity to ensure Prevent is at last subject to independent review.
Signatories:
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ)
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
Liberty
Medact
Rights Watch (UK)
Adriana Edmeades Jones, Legal and Policy Director of Rights Watch (UK), said:
“In the face of mounting evidence that Prevent is undermining relationships of trust and chilling expression in classrooms and consultation rooms across the country, it is clear that Prevent is simply not fit for purpose. It is in everyone’s interests – the communities who are targeted, the teachers, doctors and social workers tasked with implementing it, and the Government itself – that Prevent is subject to an independent review.”
Joy Hyvarinen, Head of Advocacy at Index on Censorship, said:
“An independent review of the Prevent strategy is overdue and essential if the government wants to tackle the widespread doubts about Prevent. The House of Lords should ensure that the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill includes a review of Prevent”
Brian Gormally, Director of CAJ, said:
“If the categories, criteria and methods of Prevent were applied in Northern Ireland there would be an explosion of resentment in both Loyalist and Republican communities. Why then is it alright to use them in communities in Britain?”
Rachel Logan, Amnesty International UK’s Legal Expert, said:
“Prevent is a highly dubious scheme built on shaky, almost evidence-free, foundations – it’s sorely in need of a proper review. Peers need to ensure that Prevent is rigorously and independently assessed, with all the human rights impacts of the scheme fully investigated.”
Letta Tayler, HRW Senior Researcher on terrorism and counterterrorism, said:
“This amendment to the UK counterterrorism bill provides a good opportunity to ensure long overdue scrutiny of Prevent, a key part of the country’s counterextremism program. Intrusive security powers should have independent oversight.”
Footnotes:
[1] See for example Fahid Qurashi, The Prevent strategy and the UK ‘war on terror’: embedding infrastructures of surveillance in Muslim communities; Miqdaad Versi,The latest Prevent figures show why the strategy needs an independent review; Anna Lockley-Scott Preventing what? The flawed assumptions at the heart of the Prevent duty; David Goldberg, Sushrut Jadhav and Tarek Younis, Prevent: what is pre-criminal space; Charlotte Heath-Kelly and Erzsébet Strausz, Counterterrorism in the NHS: Evaluating Prevent Duty Safeguarding by Midlands Healthcare Providers; Teachers back motion calling for Prevent strategy to be scrapped; Royal College of Psychiatrists London, Counter-terrorism and Psychiatry Position Statement PS04/16; Liberty; Rights Watch (UK), Preventing Education? Human Rights and UK Counter-Terrorism Policy in Schools and Open Society Justice Initiative, Eroding Trust: The UK’s Prevent Counter-Extremism Strategy in Health and Education.
[2] See for example 7/7 Survivor and Charity CEO Calls for Urgent Independent Review of Prevent Strategy and MPs and Lords call for review of Prevent anti-terror strategy in schools,
[3] See Letter of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism concerning the draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill which is currently under consideration of the UK’s House of Commons; Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association on his follow-up mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and End of mission statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related Intolerance at the conclusion of Her mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[/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:1542383020058-48aac27c-d559-4″ taxonomies=”27743″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
