‘LABOUR CENSORS’ Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party accused of shackling the Press in damning report (The Sun, 14 November 2018)

The section on “political interference” said methods they use “can take many forms sometimes subtle (behind-the-scenes phone calls to an editor), sometimes overt (preventing a journalist affiliated with particular outlets from attending a press conference) – but the goal of controlling information flow remains the same”. Read the full article.

Risks, rights and reputations: challenging a risk averse culture

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96667″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]

Risks, Rights & Reputations (RRR) is a half-day training programme developed by Index on Censorship, What Next? and Cause4 to provide arts and cultural leaders with the guidance, inspiration, tools and resources to navigate the rights and responsibilities of producing challenging or socially sensitive work. 

Challenging a Risk Averse Culture

“In recent years there have been an increasing number of high-profile cases raising ethical and censorship issues around plays, exhibitions and other artworks. Censorship – and self-censorship – can stand in the way of great art. That’s why Arts Council England is committed to supporting those organisations who are taking creative risks. It’s important that organisations are aware of relevant legislation and the excellent guidance that exists. This programme is an important step in ensuring that our sector can continue to create vital, challenging, and risk-taking work.” – Sir Nick Serota, chair of Arts Council England

Navigating the rights and responsibilities of art that explores socially sensitive themes can appear daunting, risky and time-consuming. We have seen work cancelled or removed, because it was provocative or the funder controversial. But, for arts and culture to be relevant, dynamic and inclusive, we have to reinforce our capacity to respond to the most complex and provocative questions.

“This important and necessary project is a great opportunity to learn and discuss with others the increasing challenges we face in the arts sector, particularly in the context of socially engaged practise and public spaces.” – Mikey Martins, Artistic Director and Joint CEO, Freedom Festival Arts Trust

Session Content

The session addresses the challenges and opportunities related to artistic risk and freedom of expression. It aims to encourage participants to voice concerns and experiences within a supportive environment and programme of presentations, discussion and group work. By the end of day participants will:

  • Understand the legal and rights framework supporting artistic freedom in the UK;
  • Learn from analysis of recent controversies in the arts;
  • Gain confidence in decision-making and planning for potentially controversial work;
  • Manage expectations relating to the role of the police;
  • Discover the value of creating an ethical fundraising policy;
  • Benefit from access to new tools, resources and ongoing support from peers and experts beyond the session.

Participants

The session is open to artistic directors, CEOs, Senior management and trustees of arts organisations.

To date, RRR sessions have been delivered in Manchester, London and Bristol, with Arts Council national and regional offices and in partnership with the Freedom Festival Arts Trust, Hull.

“I feel more confident to speak up when talking to leaders about policy, process and practice when it comes to issues around artistic risk-taking / freedom of expression and ethical fundraising. I feel more empowered to be a useful, knowledgeable sounding board for the organisation’s I support than I did previously.” – Relationship Manager, Arts Council England[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1510749691901{padding-top: -150px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_separator][vc_column_text]

UPCOMING TRAINING

We are currently accepting bookings from CEO/Artistic Directors, Chairs, individual Board Members and senior team members across the country for our upcoming RRR training sessions:[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Date[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]ACE Region[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Venue[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Host[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Trainers[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Tickets[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]30 November 2018, 12:00 – 17:00 [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Northern Ireland[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]The Black Box[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Belfast Festivals Forum[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Julia Farrington, Index on Censorship;
Michelle Wright, Cause4
Diane Morgan, director Nitrobeat[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]From £25. Book tickets for the Black Box session.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][vc_column_text]

The Team

“This was a really interesting, thought provoking, relevant and empowering session. I really appreciated the knowledge and the care taken to pull it together. Thank you!” – Participant – CEO

The RRR team consists of specialists and facilitators in freedom of expression, artistic risk and ethical fundraising alongside Artistic Director/CEO hosts who are committed to asking the difficult questions of our time:[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103264″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Julia Farrington has specialised in artistic freedom, working at the intersection between arts, politics and social justice, since 2005. She was previously Head of Arts (at Index on Censorship (2009 – 2014) and continues her pioneering work on censorship and self-censorship as Associate Arts Producer. From 2014 – 2016, Julia was head of campaigns for Belarus Free Theatre. She now works freelance and is a member of International Arts Rights Advisors (IARA), facilitator for Arts Rights Justice Academy and Impact Producer for Doc Society, promoting documentary film as a powerful advocacy tool.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103265″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Diane Morgan is the Director of nitroBEAT and a consultant/producer. She works in collaboration with artists, leaders and organisations to support (and merge) artistic risk taking and social engagement ideas, practices and approaches. Previous roles include; Project Manager for the Cultural Leadership Programme, Decibel lead for Arts Council West Midlands and Head of Projects at Contact Theatre, Manchester.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103266″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Helen Jenkins is a consultant for Cause4, a social enterprise that supports charities, social enterprises and philanthropists to develop and raise vital funds across the arts, education and charity sectors. She has over 20 years experience of working across all fundraising disciplines in senior management and at Board level.  Helen has helped organisations nationally and internationally to achieve fundraising targets and retain their ethics within challenging financial climates.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

When: Friday 30 November 2018, 12:00–17:00
Where: The Black Box 18-22 Hill Street, Belfast, BT1 2LA
Tickets: £25 (or £15 members of Belfast Festivals Forum*), includes lunch & refreshments

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Booking Information

Fees

£45 for individuals from organisations with an annual turnover of over £500K.

£80 for two individuals from organisations with an annual turnover of over £500K

£25 for individuals from organisations with an annual turnover of over £250-500K

£40 for two individuals from organisations with an annual turnover £250-500K

Bursaries

Diversity and equality are essential to both the dialogue and learning around artistic risk-taking and for stronger a cultural sector. The programme is actively seeking to be fully representative of, reflect, and to meet the needs of the arts and cultural community across; gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion and class.

In order to respond to existing under-representation we are offering a limited number of bursaries to cover the training session fee for BAME and disabled CEO/Artistic Directors, Chairs, individual Board Members and Senior team members, and individuals from organisations with an annual turnover of under £250k who are currently living and working in England.

To apply for a bursary please write to: [email protected] with a short description of your organisation and why you would like to attend this session. Deadline: Friday 9 November.

Access

We aim to provide an inclusive environment and will work with individual participants to make sure we can meet your access needs, such as providing support workers or British Sign Language interpreters or preparing programme materials in alternative formats. Our experienced facilitators aim to be as flexible as possible in order to make the programme work for your particular needs. For access queries please write to [email protected][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Turkey: Whitewashing the police, one sentence at a time

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103683″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]The head judge cleared his throat and called the journalist. As soon as he pronounced her name, “Seda Taşkın,” in his high-pitched voice, a look of incredulity spread across the faces of the handful of people watching the trial in the austere courthouse in Muş, a small town in Turkey’s far east. One lawyer, startled, dared to point out the unexpected sequence of words: “Did you just call her ‘Seda?’” Rıdvan Konak asked.

For the first time throughout the trial, the judge’s impassive eyes betrayed a glimpse of nervousness. It must have dawned on him: During the previous hearings, he had insisted on calling her “Seher,” the name on her ID card. After all, the prosecution had claimed that “Seda” was nothing but a code name for her allegedly illegal activities. In fact, Taşkın’s purported code name was the sole shred of ostensible evidence for the prosecution’s charge of “membership in a terrorist organisation,” and the judge was absent-mindedly throwing it away.

A faint and uneasy smile formed below his thin moustache. “You thought all along that we were fixated on that, but we were not,” he managed to reply, looking awkwardly at lawyers from his raised platform. It was an explanation he mumbled aloud twice – just like a little boy caught in flagrante delicto trying to convince his parents that he wasn’t misbehaving. It was also an odd excuse given that the court had twice refused to release the journalist on the grounds that more evidence was needed to prove that all her family and friends had called her “Seda” since she was a toddler. Yet a hopeful question popped up in everyone’s mind. Could this slip of the tongue be a good omen?

The fact the head judge so naturally ended up calling the journalist by the name everybody used showed how much regard the court paid to the accusations levelled by the prosecution. The journalist’s lawyer, Ebru Akkal, said distorted evidence and interpretations were common in free speech cases. “But in Seda’s case, we are dealing with blatant lies,” Akkal said. Taşkın, a reporter focusing on culture, education and women’s rights, was accused of sharing articles on her social media accounts – none of which were written by her.

“Let’s imagine for a moment that they were claiming that Seda killed someone. But the prosecutor is unable to present the weapon with which the crime was committed or establish the place where the murder occurred,” Akkal explained. “What’s more, the person whom they claim was killed is not dead but stands before them. This is the kind of case that Seda was faced with.”

And it did feel as though Taşkın was being personally targeted by the anti-terrorism unit of Muş in light of the massive rights violations she experienced from the moment of her arrest, including a fabricated tipoff, physical and psychological ill-treatment during custody, threats, as well as blackmail.

Nevertheless, Akkal said they expected Taşkın’s release until the very moment that the verdict was pronounced. The judges overseeing the case, however, opted to change the goalposts at the last minute, suddenly and arbitrarily replacing the original accusation with the vaguer charge of “aiding a terrorist organisation without being a member.” The court also refused to provide any additional time to the defense to object to the charge as required.

“I think that the court was convinced that Seda had nothing to do with a terrorist organisation. But they needed to find a charge because they couldn’t let any individual who got into the authorities’ grip go without a sentence,” Akkal said.

The court eventually handed Taşkın four years and two months on the charge of “aiding a terrorist organisation without being a member” and three years and four months on the charge of “conducting propaganda,” adding up to a total of 7.5 years in jail. The journalist, who has already spent 10 months in pre-trial detention at the Silivri Prison in Ankara, will remain in jail during the appeal process. Taşkın was forced to make all her defense statements via video-conference broadcast on a screen inside the courtroom 1,000 kilometers from the capital.

The court had already buried police irregularities by refusing to investigate the identity of the person who gave the tipoff despite repeated requests by lawyers. The extension of the email address in the files, which authorities neglected to black out, clearly indicated the tipoff came from a member of the police department. The judges also refused to heed Taşkın’s long account of the abuse, strip searches, beatings and threats she suffered. But by sentencing her, they have closed the case with a minimum of fuss for the police and the prosecutor.

Taşkın’s lawyers expressed indignation at the court’s handling of the case, describing it as blatant bias. “If the judges are to wash the prosecutor’s hands and the prosecutor, in turn, the police’s hands, why not just let the police run the investigation and issue a verdict?” Akkal said.

“Eclectic and sensitive”

Only two years ago, Taşkın was thrilled when she learned that she had been appointed to the eastern city of Van by the pro-Kurdish Mezopotamya News Agency. She thought that her new position in the agency’s second largest regional office would give her invaluable experience as a journalist in a much tougher environment. The decision also meant leaving her family home in Ankara for the first time in her life. Her parents, however, were concerned about her plans, since journalists working in Kurdish provinces have become even more vulnerable to arrests and detentions since authorities declared a state of emergency in 2016.

She possibly chose the most difficult context possible to work “in the region,” as many reporters in the field refer to the Kurdish southeast. The crackdown on Kurdish media intensified during a military assault that was launched in the winter of 2015 and peaked under the state of emergency clampdown. Many journalists were tracked, investigated, threatened and some, such as Nedim Türfent, jailed and charged with terrorism offenses.

Ultimately, Taşkın’s motivation and determination won her family over, and the young journalist went to begin her work.

The poise she showed was a pleasant surprise for her elder sister Yelda. “We saw the change,” she says. “Seda is someone very emotional and restless. Although she tried, she didn’t graduate from university. So, Seda started as an intern at the agency and was hoping to study journalism after garnering some experience.”

In Van, she felt empowered to express her personality, especially when covering stories that were colourful or touching more so than merely political. “She was eclectic. Her sensitivity and inner conscience allowed her to report on universal subjects such as ecology or women’s issues,” her sister said. She toured villages around the Van Lake, met local people and developed her passion for photography to such a degree that she didn’t want to go back to Ankara.

Then, one day in December 2017, her agency sent her to Muş to report on as many articles as she could. It was Taşkın’s first time in the rural and conservative province. She travelled first to Varto, a former Armenian town populated today by a majority of Alevis – a community whose belief system is often labelled as a heterodox and progressive form of Shia Islam – who had fled Dersim during the state-perpetrated massacres of 1938. Dersim, today called Tunceli after the name of the Turkish state’s military operation, is also the hometown of Taşkın’s family.

After reporting on the newly established culture and solidarity association in Varto, she returned to the provincial center, a place firmly under the control of the police. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) had won the municipality over the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) and kept the city under strict state authority. She would be arrested shortly thereafter.

Bizarre significance of hearing dates

According to her lawyer Akkal, the mere fact that proceedings were conducted in Muş seriously affected the course of the trial. “The rulings of courts are so inconsistent and unpredictable. Had Seda been arrested in Ankara she wouldn’t even have stayed in prison a day. At worst, she would have been released at the first hearing,” Akkal said. “A very different approach exists in places such as Muş, Bitlis or Van. People are declared guilty at the moment they are arrested. [Authorities] don’t follow the evidence to find the suspect, they collect the evidence based on the suspect instead.”

Taşkın’s case followed the same trajectory. Among the several reports she was covering, Taşkın met with the family of 80-year-old Sise Bingöl, who has been in jail on terror charges since 2016 despite suffering from heart and lung disease. The recordings of her interview with Bingöl’s relatives, which were found after Taşkın was arrested, were used as evidence in the trial even though the journalist never published them. Once she was taken in custody, police seemed to have dissected her Facebook and Twitter accounts to find any post that could make a terrorism charge admissible in the eyes of the Turkey’s ever less independent judiciary.

Taşkın’s former colleague Hayri Demir, a journalist based in Ankara who followed the last hearing in Muş, stressed that social media posts containing news reports should be considered as a journalistic activity in itself. “Social media has become a publishing space for journalists. It’s a space where journalists share their own and their colleagues’ articles,” said Demir, who himself is facing 10.5 years for five tweets – all of which lacked any personal comment – on Turkey’s military operation against the Syrian town of Afrin in January.

“It’s six days per character,” he joked. “They are trying to entirely silence journalists by even incriminating their social media posts.”

Accusing journalists of sharing other people’s news articles also violates the individuality of criminal responsibility, a critical principle of modern criminal law.  

But aside from the dubious practices of the authorities, there was one aspect to Taşkın’s case that seemed to amount to psychological harassment: The symbolic dates of the hearings. The second hearing of the case was held on 2 July, the 25th anniversary of an attack by an extremist mob in Sivas that killed 33 Alevi artists. The third hearing was set on 12 September, the anniversary of the 1980 coup, which resulted in imprisonment and torture for thousands of left-wing and pro-Kurdish activists. The fourth and last hearing was on 10 October, the third anniversary of Turkey’s deadliest-ever terrorist attack, which the Islamic State perpetrated against peace activists in Ankara. As for the date of the first hearing, 30 April, that happened to coincide with the liberation of Muş from foreigners after World War I.

The journalist was the first one to notice the significance of the dates, Akkal said. “She told me, ‘Ebru, they are doing it intentionally.’ I don’t believe that the dates were randomly chosen either.”

The verdict will become definitive if the regional court rejects her appeal – and because Taşkın’s sentences are each under five years, she will not have recourse to the Supreme Court of Appeals if the lower court rules against her. Regional courts are hardly known for their initiative, but both lawyers and taşkın retain their hopes for a rare fair reassessment of the case. In the meantime, lawyers have applied to the Turkish Constitutional Court to halt the execution of the sentence based on a precedent for journalists Mehmet Altan and Şahin Alpay. In January 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled that the imprisonment of both journalists not only violated their right to security and freedom but that there was not enough evidence to hold the men. Although first instance courts controversially refused to implement the decision, the pair was released at the end of a legal row months later.   

Taşkın’s lawyers are also preparing to file an application at the European Court of Human Rights, although Akkal noted that it will take at least a year for either of Turkey’s top courts to make a decision. Taşkın, meanwhile, may face years in prison waiting for justice to be served. “After the initial shock of the verdict, she is now calm. She is trying to spend her time productively,” Akkal said.

Her sister Yelda said Seda had started to learn English in prison and was reading lots of books. “We were expecting her to be released in each hearing. But we would like anyone who is unfairly imprisoned to be free,” she said, adding that Seda has tried to remain conscious of the fact that she is not the only journalist in jail.

Indeed, during her defense, Taşkın not only called for her release but expressed her wishes that all her colleagues would walk free – an expression of human solidarity against organised unlawfulness that has riddled the law, one unjust sentence at a time.[/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:1542196485676-71e5a902-cafb-4″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

22 November: UK Internet Governance Forum 2018

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103677″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]This year’s UK-Internet Governance Forum meeting is being held at the Cavendish Conference Centre in London and will focus on Solutions for The Digital Age.

We are delighted to announce guests speakers including Tech UK, Privacy International, Chatham House and Kari Lawler, one of the UK’s youngest female tech entrepreneurs, as well as a key note address from the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Register your place for UK-IGF 2018 here

If you’re unable to join us but would like to join us via the live stream, you can sign up here.

Agenda

Full agenda and confirmed speakers to date:

9:00 – 9:30         Registration

9:30 – 9:40         Opening remarks: Russell Haworth, CEO, Nominet

9:40 – 10:10       Lessons learnt from Paris and Dubai

Reflecting on the insight and debate from the global IGF in UNESCO, Paris, on 12-14 November and the regional IGF in Dubai.

  • Richard Wingfield, Legal Officer, Global Partners Digital
  • Mark Carvell, Head of International Online Policy, DCMS
  • Desiree Miloshevic, Internet Society Chapter England UK Team Lead and The Internet Society Board Trustee.
  • Collin Kurre, Digital Program Officer, Article 19

10:10 – 10:25     Explainer series: The potential impact of AI in my generation, and how we can plan for the future

Kari Lawler, Founder, Youth AI 

An explainer session by one of the UK’s youngest ever start-up entrepreneurs who is one of the top ten teen female tech talents in the UK.

10:25 – 10:45     Coffee Break

10:45 – 11:45     Online Safety – Making the UK the safest place to be online

A goldfish panel to discuss how the UK can be the safest place to be online with a focus on cyberbullying, hate speech and marginalisation.

  • Professor Sonia Livingstone, Professor of Social Psychology, London School of Economics
  • Douglas White, Head of Advocacy, Carnegie Trust
  • David Wright, Director, UK Safer Internet Centre
  • Vicki Shotbolt, Founder and CEO, Parentzone
  • Barbora Bukovska, Senior Director of Law and Policy, London Article 19
  • Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship
  • Michael Tunks, Policy and Public Affairs Manager, Internet Watch Foundation
  • Orla MacRae, Deputy Director, Online Harms, Security and Online Harms Directorate, DCMS

11:45 – 12:00     Algorithm Explainer

Ansgar Koene, Senior Research Fellow, Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute, University of Nottingham

An explainer session on how algorithms work and what the implications in terms of how we access information.

12:00 -13:00       Lunch

13:00 – 13:45     GDPR 6 months on – Lessons learnt

This session will review how the industry and consumers have reacted to the introduction of the GDPR 6 months on.

  • Neil Thacker, Chief Information Security Officer of EMEA, Netskope
  • Rosalind Goodfellow, Domestic Data Protection Team, DCMS

13:45 – 14:30     Personal data – What is personal?

In the shadow of high-profile stories such as Cambridge Analytica this session will discuss the ethics of selling personal data to third parties and using personal data or non-PII for targeted promoted content.  It will also discuss whether the GDPR definition of personal data too restrictive for businesses to thrive.

  • Ailidh Callander, Legal Officer, Privacy International
  • Jamie Bartlett, Demos

14:30 – 14:50     Afternoon break

14:50 – 15:20     Key note speech from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

15:20 – 16:30     Cybersecurity and the Internet of Things – ‘Security by Design’

An ‘in conversation with’ session on ‘security by design’ on how the UK can protect against Internet of Things devices and lessons learnt across the globe.

  • Olaf Kolkman, Chief Internet Technology Officer, The Internet Society (Chair)
  • Talal Rajab, Head of Programme – Cyber and National Security, Tech UK
  • Stephen Pattison, Vice President of Public Affairs, ARM
  • Eva Blum-Dumontet, Privacy Research Officer, Privacy International
  • Matthew Shears, Director of Cyber, Global Partners Digital and Board Member, ICANN
  • Joyce Hakmeh, Cyber Research Fellow, Chatham House

16:30 – 17:00     Sum up and wrap up by Olivier Crepin-Leblond, UK Chair, Internet Society

17:00                   Networking drinks & Close[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

When: Thursday 22 November 2018, 9am–5pm
Where: Cavendish Conference Centre, 22 Duchess Mews, London W1G 9DT (map)
Tickets: Register

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK