30 Jul 2018 | Malaysia, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1532952362622-3cdbf71d-d6a0-4″ include=”101642,101641,101640,101639,101638,101637″][vc_column_text]
For Malaysian cartoonist Zunar, three years of constitutional challenges pale in comparison to the 43 years imprisonment that were on the line. But after a legal battle active since 3 April 2015, Zunar’s nine sedition charges were dropped on Monday 30 July 2018. With three days in court still to follow, the victory is one of several the artist is seeking as an advocate for free expression and the repeal of the Sedition Act.
Implemented during British rule and strictly enforced by the regime of former PM Najib Razak, the Sedition Act spared no government critic whether artist, activist or MP. Under newly elected PM Mahathir Mohamad, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) announced that it would review all ongoing sedition cases starting 13 July.
In the first of his four court dates this week, Zunar was acquitted along with MP Sivarasa Rasiah of the People’s Justice Party (PKR) and civil rights lawyer N. Surendran. All three individuals were charged for denouncing the Razak regime’s conviction of opposition leader and PKR member Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy.
Surendran faced charges on 19 August 2014 after writing a seditious press release entitled “Court of Appeal’s Fitnah 2 written judgement is flawed, defensive and insupportable.” Zunar was charged not for his political cartooning but for tweets that insulted the judiciary after Anwar’s conviction. Both were charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act for “publish[ing], […] distribut[ing] or reproduc[ing] any seditious publication” while Sivarasa was charged under Section 4(1)(b) for “utter[ing] any seditious words” in a speech at the March 2015 “Kita Lawan” (“We Fight”) rally in protest of Anwar’s imprisonment.
After their hearings on Monday in Kuala Lumpur, prosecutors reported that the AGC would not pursue their respective cases any further. Zunar’s victory was widely celebrated by his global fanbase. Human Rights Watch legal advisor Linda Lakhdhir tweeted “Excellent news that the Malaysian govt is dropping sedition charges against @zunarkartunis and @nsurendrann. Now it should drop all remaining sedition charges and repeal the law.”
Indeed, the Pakatan Harapan coalition the government is now under promised to repeal the Sedition Act in its 2018 election manifesto. As Zunar told Index earlier this month, “If they really want to abolish the Sedition Act together with other laws related to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, they at least need to suspend it first before they continue.”
His upcoming court dates, 31 July-2 August, concern a suit the cartoonist filed after he was arrested and his artwork and 1300 of his books were confiscated in a police raid during an exhibition in October 2016. Although there have not been any similar cases since Mahathir came to power, Zunar hopes to use his cartooning and advocacy to serve as a watchdog and hold the government to their commitments on free expression.
[/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:1532952291084-c9001237-0b1b-4″ taxonomies=”4218″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
30 Jul 2018 | Europe and Central Asia, Lithuania, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Dainius Radzevicius, chairman of Lithuania’s Journalists Union. Credit: alkas.lt)
In the 28 years since Lithuania gained independence, the country’s media has generally enjoyed high levels of freedom. The country’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and those protections have been respected by successive governments. However, while initiatives by the country’s current ruling coalition haven’t seen the press attacked on the same levels as neighbouring Poland, for example, the government’s resolve is clear: the media must be reined in.
Index spoke with the chairman of the country’s Journalists Union, Dainius Radzevicius about the situation media workers now find themselves in.
Linas Jegelevicius: How would you rate the level of press freedom in Lithuania right now?
Dainius Radzevicius: The ruling Farmers and Greens Party (LVZS), in coalition with the Social Democratic Party of Lithuania, has risen to power as part of the wave of the anti-establishment parties sweeping the West. This coalition has declared the need for more regulation of the media. For example, it has attempted to push through legislation that, if enacted, would have required a 50/50 balance for negative and positive content in the media. It was proposed by the MP Dovile Sakaliene, but she withdrew it after a public outcry. Another MP from LVZS, Robertas Sarknickas, has sought tougher legislative action against the so-called “romanticising” of suicides (he believes that media shouldn’t specify how a person died). Initiatives by the ruling party aimed at regulating media are undoubtedly the biggest concern for journalists. It is likely that we will see more initiatives of this kind in Lithuania.
The second threat to media freedom in Lithuania stems from the determination of authorities, especially those at the municipal level, to control the information that reaches local readers, viewers and listeners.
I see journalists being increasingly barred from accessing certain events, such as those held in state institutions. Recently, journalists in the Gargzdai municipality were denied the right to attend a meeting with the municipality heads and the prime minister, Saulius Skvernelis. It is an abnormal situation when the mayors’ advisors are given exclusive access to information. The mayor’s advisors video-streamed the meeting and posted the news on Facebook. This is an increasing trend in Lithuania, where journalists are being bypassed in the preparing and disseminating of information.
Thirdly, I see the trend of journalists being too complacent with the position of the publishers and the structures behind them and tend to avoid criticising certain political and business entities and so on. In doing so, they feel safe job-wise. This self-censorship is especially prevalent among older, as well as young, inexperienced journalists.
Jegelevicius: Do you foresee more threats to media freedom in Lithuania in the future? Specifically, are there any controversial legislative initiatives on the agenda in the upcoming autumn session of parliament?
Radzevicius: Those initiatives tend to pop up out of the blue as a rule. From what I can see, after reviewing the autumn session draft agenda, there is a draft law on state support for the media, the intention of which is rather obscure so far. I am concerned that state authorities will be entrusted with the distribution of funds. Being aware of the processes, I just cannot rule that out. If this happens, it will deal another big blow to media freedom in Lithuania. I especially worry that freelancers and independent media content producers would be affected by it. The model of state support that existed until now was not ideal, but it was pretty fair, including to freelancers.
Jegelevicius: There have been several cases of closure of Russian TV news channels by Lithuanian authorities. What is your take on the issue? Does the removal of NTV Mir and RTR Planeta off the air for six months count as media violations?
Radzevicius: I want to emphasise that the measures were taken after multiple violations occurred. No state puts up with warmongering and instigating of enmity and disseminating of propaganda. The repetitive violations by the Russian TV channels were reviewed by different Lithuanian media supervision bodies, as well as by the European Commission, before the decision was made to shut them down. Note that suspension of the broadcasting is for a limited period (6 months), after which the channels can resume the license. A big portion of their content had very little to do with journalism – the local viewers were awash with propaganda ordered in Moscow. Many problems of the kind would be solved if all the states, including Russia, would pass laws and ratify international conventions that would allow journalists to work independently and bar states from using journalists as propaganda tools.
Jegelevicius: How does Lithuania compare with other European countries in terms of press freedom?
Radzevicius: We indeed have very few violations but I believe some go unreported. With 28 years as an independent state, the majority of the ruling coalitions have understood the importance of media freedom to democracy and to the checking of legislative, judicial and governmental powers in the country. The fact that the parties tend to change after serving their term in Lithuania has also been an important factor for media freedom.
Jegelevicius: Lithuania holds municipal council, presidential and European Parliament elections next year. There is a worry that unfriendly states such as Russia will meddle with them, including attempts to influence the media. Financially unstable media outlets are especially prone to such acts. Will the authorities step in and regulate the process during the sensitive election period?
Radzevicius: I have no doubt that our state authorities, including the State Security Department, are very well aware of what to expect. Indeed, we live in a small country with a pretty small media market, all of which makes it easier to monitor what is going on. From the point of view of journalism, transparency is the best remedy to guarantee that the elections are violation-proof.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGOTAlMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1532934432548-8a5b26e4-acf4-5″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Jul 2018 | Denmark, Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Known across Europe for its journalistic quality and as an exporter of hit political dramas, Danish state broadcaster DR will this autumn be forced to make unprecedented layoffs in what some are calling an act of “revenge” by the government.
In a package of media reforms agreed by Denmark’s governing right-wing coalition, DR is to have its funding cut by 20% and will be forced to let several hundred staff go as a result.
A significant driver of the cuts is the right-wing populist Danish People’s Party (DF), a political movement founded in the mid-1990s that has grown to become a supporting partner of the conservative coalition government. DF politicians have been known to discredit public media outlets and encouraged voters towards alternative websites pushing strongly nationalistic content, with DR often caricatured as a hotbed of left wingers and politically correct liberals.
One longtime editor from DR’s current affairs team, who wished to remain anonymous, said he believes the cuts are a clear political power play: “This thing about DR being left wing goes 50 years back to the days when DR was a monopoly in Denmark when it was accused of being biased, but the funny thing is that all the DR stars that went into politics over many years all have gone to right-wing parties. In the past, there have been examples of DR leaning a little to the left, but nothing on the scale of what they’re being accused off; it simply makes no sense.”
Thoughts have now turned to where exactly the cuts will bite, combined with anger among DR journalists at what they see as a personal attack.
“This will cost around 600-700 jobs and people will get the sack in October,” says the editor. “Are they pissed off? Of course they are, because they feel it’s unjust. The budget of DR is £450 million a year and employs about 3,000 people. Yes, there’s room for cuts, they just have to be based on facts and necessities and not the whims of vengeful politicians.”
Traditionally DR has used large-scale audience capture to divert viewers and listeners towards its more educational and politically analytical content. Journalists fear that by being forced to hand over more popular content to commercial and entertainment-only channels, it will end up shedding audience share, which will then be used as a political justification for further cuts in public spending. The government has also removed the public broadcaster’s first refusal on international sporting events which bring in large numbers of viewers, much to the delight of commercial broadcasters.
DR’s politically cautious general director, Maria Rørbye Rønn, has said that the cutbacks will have serious consequences for the organisation’s users, viewers and listeners. Unions have been more forthright, with DR’s most senior union representative, Henrik Friis Vilmar, telling colleagues in an open letter: “[T]he ambitions of the Danish media are to my mind especially important at a time where Danish-produced critical news is more important than ever in order to stem the tide of fake news and troll factories.” Friis Vilmar went on to warn that the ability of DR to critically observe Danish society was at serious risk.
Morten Østergaard, a member of parliament for the opposition Danish Social Liberal Party, has described the cuts as a “vendetta against DR”, while the Social Democrats have also refused to back the government deal, claiming that cuts will mean less Danish content and less coverage of life in Denmark, which would also negatively impact the Danish democratic system.
The government has responded that it is saving Danes money by effectively giving them a small tax break, though the difference this will make to people’s personal finances is negligible, with people saving at most around 160 euros a year. As part of the package of reforms the government is abolishing the current system of media licences and instead financing DR through the tax system.
DR was founded in 1925 and has a reputation for being one of Europe’s most developed and innovative public broadcasters. In 2007 it moved to a new high-tech media campus on the south side of Copenhagen and currently runs six different TV channels and eight radio channels, including a comprehensive local radio network.
The opposition parties in the Danish parliament have said that they will restore DR’s funding if they win the next election. This might be welcome news for public service journalists, but with the axe hanging over so many of its staff, the next round of elections will see a leaner public broadcaster painfully aware that its detractors in power are watching its every move.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Incidents reported to Mapping Media Freedom since 24 May 2014.” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:14|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGNzklMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1532621766097-fa067966-c17c-8″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
