3 Mar 2021 | Burma, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116336″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The new military junta in Myanmar is continuing to assault and jail journalists as it progresses with its bloody coup.
At least 26 journalists have been arrested since Min Aung Hlaing seized power on 1 February and at least ten have been charged under section 505(a) of Myanmar’s penal code.
Two of the journalists, MCN TV News reporter Tin Mar Swe and The Voice’s Khin May San, have been granted bail but the remaining eight are still detained in the notorious military-run Insein prison in Yangon, known as “the darkest hell-hole” in the country and a byword for torture, abuse and inhumane conditions for inmates.
Section 505(a) makes it a crime to publish any “statement, rumour or report”, “with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty”, essentially making criticism of the military government impossible.
Reporters are particularly vulnerable during protests. Myo Min Htike, former secretary of the Myanmar Journalist Association, recently told Index that journalists are being targeted across the country, particularly if they have covered protests against the coup and many have fled in fear for their lives and liberty.
Credible reports from the country show the dangers facing reporters covering the protests. Shin Moe Myint, a 23-year-old freelance photo journalist was severely beaten and arrested by policemen while she covered a protest in Yangon on 28 February.
Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) journalist Ko Aung Kyaw live-streamed a violent arrest in which, according to reports by The Irrawaddy, he had stones thrown through his window and police officers firing threateningly into the air when asked if they had obtained a warrant to enter his premises.
Aung Kyaw could “be heard shouting that a stone injured his head and appealing to neighbours for help before the security forces broke into his house and arrested him”.
Thein Zaw, covering the protests for Associated Press, has been charged with violating public law while Ma Kay Zon Nway of Myanmar Now and Aung Ye Ko of 7 Days News have also been arrested.
Others still detained include the journalists Hein Pyae Zaw, Ye Myo Khant, Ye Yint Tun, Chun Journal chief editor Kyaw Nay Min and Salai David of Chinland Post.
Sit Htet Aung of the Myanmar Times, who took the picture above, was one of the lucky ones who managed to escape a beating and detention.
Use of section 505(a) shows an automatic crackdown on criticism of the military regime and since the coup, the junta has implemented a number of problematic legislation changes which could easily be used against journalists in the country.
According to Amnesty International: “Courts routinely convict individuals under this section without evidence establishing the requisite intent or a likelihood that military personnel would abandon their duty as a result of the expression.”
“In practice, the section has often been used to prosecute criticism of the military – expression protected by international human rights law.”
The law has since been amended, meaning anyone charged under it can be arrested without a warrant and it is no longer a bailable offence, thus any future arrests – which are likely – will find journalists in Myanmar detained with little hope of an immediate reprieve.
The same amendments apply to 124(a) of the penal code, which previously made anti-government comments illegal.
Journalists also rely heavily on the internet to publish their stories, but amendments to the Electronic Transactions Law allow law enforcement to harvest the personal data of anyone deemed to be in breach of a cyber-crime, or – more broadly – those critical of the regime online.[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”38″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Feb 2021 | News and features, Russia, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116328″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship was established to provide a voice for dissidents living either under authoritarian regimes or in exile. Throughout our history extraordinary people have written for us and we have campaigned for their freedom. Every time Index seeks to intervene there is obviously a consideration made about who we seek to shine a light on and which regimes are of concern but the reality is we don’t get to choose dissident leaders and we don’t get to choose who inspires a movement. Our role is simple – we are here to campaign for equal access to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We may not like the actions of some dissidents, we may not like how they have used their rights to free expression – but we exist to ensure that they have that right.
Index operates from a position of luxury, from the security of a democratic country. Our human rights are protected in law. For far too many people in the world that is not the case. Which brings me to the case of Alexei Navalny – we may find his comments as a younger man abhorrent, but his actions as a dissident leader cannot be questioned. His ability to inspire a nation to challenge an authoritarian regime is extraordinary. And the fact that he has nearly lost his life in an attempted chemical poisoning is beyond doubt. Navalny is a political prisoner. He is a dissident. He deserves our solidarity.
Index stands with Navalny.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Feb 2021 | News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116325″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Student journalists across the USA are marking Student Press Freedom Day. But as for many journalists, the Covid-19 pandemic has posed challenges to the ability of students on university publications to do their jobs.
Limited access to equipment, resources and interviews are obvious hindrances to their reporting.
Hadar Harris of the Student Press Law Council (SPLC), which helps advocate the day, spoke of how important it is for student journalists not to be limited in their work.
“Student journalists’ efforts should not be limited or censored during this critical time,” he said. “Rather, they must be supported and encouraged as part of providing an essential service to the community during the current Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.”
Even before the pandemic, censorship of high-school and college students was a problem. Between 2017 and 2019, there were 15 cases recorded by media watchdog US Freedom Tracker of censorship of students.
In 2015, The Wesleyan Argus published an op-ed critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. In response, some of Weslyan’s students put together a petition demanding the paper lose its funding.
A satirical article criticising Jewish stereotypes was met with multiple complains when it was published in the Promethean in 2016, the newspaper of the University of Wisconsin. The incident was investigated by the university, before being dropped after pressure from student rights body The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Student journalists are easily censored in the USA due to a ruling in 1988 allows schools to dictate what can and cannot be published.
The Supreme Court reversed a court of appeals decision and ruled that a newspaper produced as part of a class and without a “policy or practice” could be censored.
Harris said, “Since 1988, with the handing down of the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case at the US Supreme Court, public school administrators have been able to censor the work of student journalists for any “legitimate pedagogical concern”.”
“This has led to overzealous administrators censoring student work because it would put the school in a bad light, is embarrassing, is controversial or may get pushback from parents. In addition, after more than 30 years of Hazelwood, we are deeply concerned about the impact of self-censorship – students who don’t even try to write a story that they think won’t be “acceptable” to school authorities.”
“Only 14 states have student press freedom legislation which protects the independence of student journalists in the US.”
Across the world there have been instances of student journalists being censored. Emergency measures by governments are often opportunistic ploys to go against freedom of information. Without full accreditation more difficult to receive during a pandemic, responding to questions from student journalist is less of a priority.
Journalism lecturer at UK university Liverpool John Moores (LJMU), Steve Harrison, spoke of the difficulties facing his students over the past year.
“Students have found it incredibly challenging,” he said. “From practical things like not being able to access broadcast kit from or not being able to go out to do vox pops, to more social support, such as meeting up with mates to discuss ideas or popping into a lecturer’s office for a chat.”
Student journalism is often a vital part of local discourse and important for communities. Many well-known journalists cut their teeth at student papers such as Jeremy Paxman and David Frost.
Their dedicated resources mean there are additional voices challenging authorities and important figures within different areas.
LJMU third-year student Wes Powell, though admitting that local authorities – in Liverpool at least – have been generous and forthcoming, said reporting during the pandemic had become more difficult.
“Reporting, at least from my own experience, has been flipped entirely on its head since the start of the pandemic,” he said. “Getting in touch with contacts for stories has been made harder, and even though many people are now readily available and are using Zoom almost all day when working from home, many are much more reluctant to provide comments for ongoing stories.”
“There’s also the added difficulties of trying to carry out reporting while adhering to lockdown restrictions and social distancing, which has made things a lot more complicated.”
Some excellent student journalism has been complied by the SPLC and can be read here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”5641″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Feb 2021 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116315″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Legal but harmful speech – what does it even mean and why is every government body so insistent that the best way to deal with hate is to legislate against it?
So, you may guess from my tone that I am getting a little irked. There seems to be a pattern emerging in the UK, that rather than genuinely tackling some of the thornier issues–we’re seeing calls for more laws and regulations as the quick fix. Seemingly so people can say they are doing something, anything, rather than tackle the root causes of the problems at hand.
This week was a case in point. Building on the Government’s plans to create a new designation of unacceptable language for our online conversations in the Online Safety Bill – legal but harmful – we saw yet more headlines outlining the latest initiative from a well-intentioned quasi-government body seeking legislation to regulate speech in order to protect us from extremists.
The Centre for Countering Extremism published a paper calling for a new legal framework to tackle extremism – or rather extremist language which is creating an environment conducive to building new extremist groups. In principle, this is something that is difficult to knock and I have huge admiration for many of the people involved, but this is a slippery slope.
Let me be clear. I am not suggesting (nor would I ever) that all is well in our online world. It isn’t – there are too many examples of toxic abuse. Political and ideological extremism seems to be on the march; bullying, trolling, hate speech and threats are becoming far too normalised online. I should know, after all I still seem to attract a little too much of it…
But the question is can you or even should you regulate speech. Would that even work? Is regulation going to make people be nicer to each other online – or is there something more sinister at play that we need to focus our efforts on. As Taylor Swift said “haters gonna hate”.
So surely the real challenge here is how we balance dealing with the minority who choose to incite hatred and create a toxic environment which is attacking our very value system without undermining one of our basic fundamental rights – free speech.
Reaching for the statute book as a legislator is the easy option – politicians can say they have done something – even if that something hasn’t fixed the problem. They can point at a law and say job done. But let’s be honest, you can’t legislate culture and you can’t regulate language and nor should we be trying to.
People aren’t stupid, extremists aren’t stupid, recruiters to terror groups aren’t stupid – they are abhorrent, evil and wrong – and while some may not be that bright, the most effective tend not to be stupid.
If you change the law to restrict what they can and can’t say – all they will do is moderate their language, introduce coded phrases and push extremism into spaces that can’t be monitored. Suppression of language simply will not defeat the dangerous ideology at play. But what you will have done is create an environment where certain communities feel that they can’t speak at all – a chilling effect which will both create martyrs and undermine community cohesion.
Moving the line of legality will simply result in extremists developing a new vocabulary to achieve the same outcomes as they did before. And then we enter a dangerous period of cat and mouse where restrictions become even tighter, ensnaring legitimate debate and discussion in order to catch those purveyors of hate.
Someone famous once said, “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” and that mantra should be the starting point for any government on this issue. I have always said that speech should be free but not free of consequences.
The penalty for incitement should be severe – severe enough to be a deterrent but, and it’s a big but, the same level of resource, if not more, should be used to meet the continually emerging challenges of political extremism through education, engagement and community investment.
Empowering people to challenge hate speech and building a society where debate is celebrated but extremism is rightly ostracized. I know that for many that may be a naïve aspiration – but the alternative is a world where silence becomes the norm – because speech is too difficult.
Postscript. Just a note to thank Hannah who, in between doing her schoolwork yesterday, helped type my blog this week.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
