18 Oct 24 | Malta, News and features, Newsletters, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine
Hello, readers. This is Sarah Dawood here, editor of Index on Censorship. Every week, we bring the most pertinent global free speech stories to your inbox.
I must confess that today’s newsletter is very bleak, so I won’t be offended if you click away in search of a more optimistic end to your week. We’re reflecting on how journalists are increasingly being silenced globally, not only with the threat of legal retribution or imprisonment, but with death – often with little or no repercussions for those responsible.
This week marked the seven-year anniversary of the murder of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed in a car bomb attack on 16 October 2017. She reported extensively on corruption in Malta, as well as on international scandals such as the Panama Papers (the historic data leak exposing how the rich exploit secret offshore tax regimes).
Two hitmen were convicted for her murder in 2022, but criminal proceedings are still ongoing against three more suspects, including the alleged mastermind of the assassination and the alleged bomb suppliers. This week, free speech organisations signed an open letter to Malta’s prime minister calling on him to promptly implement robust, internationally-sound legal reform to keep journalists safe in future. The letter pointed to a public inquiry into her death, which found it was both “predictable and preventable”, and highlighted “the failure of the authorities to take measures to protect her”.
The start of this month marked another grim milestone – six years since the death of prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi. He was a regular contributor to major news outlets like Middle East Eye and The Washington Post, as well as editor-in-chief at the former Bahrain-based Al-Arab News Channel. A vocal critic of his government, he was assassinated at a Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
Such attacks on free speech continue. We were appalled, for instance, to learn of the death of the 27-year-old Ukrainian journalist Victoria Roshchyna last week, a reporter from the front-line of the Russia-Ukraine war who had written for Index about her experiences. The circumstances around her death are still unknown, but we know she died in Russian detention.
Increasingly, governments or powerful individuals act with impunity – whereby their human rights violations are exempt from punishment – willfully ignoring international law that states journalists are civilians and have a “right to life”. For many victims, the course of justice is either delayed, as in Caruana Galizia’s case, or the circumstances around their deaths are obfuscated and murky, as in Roshchyna’s. Question marks remain over who is ultimately responsible, or how it happened, creating a cycle of censorship whereby it’s not only the journalists and their reporting that are silenced, but their deaths.
This impunity has been shown in plain sight throughout the Israel-Hamas war. To date, 123 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces, with the Committee to Protect Journalists concluding that at least five were intentionally targeted. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) deny these claims, yet an Al Jazeera documentary recently revealed that journalists live in fear of their lives, and their families’. One of the most high-profile cases of a targeted attack was that of Hamza al-Dahdouh, the son of Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief and veteran journalist Wael al-Dahdouh, whose wife and another two children were also previously killed in Israeli airstrikes. Two Israeli and three Lebanese journalists have also been killed in the conflict, with the International Criminal Court seeking arrest warrant applications for both Israeli and Hamas leaders for war crimes.
All these cases show a growing disregard for journalists’ lives, but also for the very essence of journalism itself. When not threatened with death or physical violence, media personnel are threatened with imprisonment, the closing of legitimate news offices, internet blackouts, and psychological and financial abuse. SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation – for instance, are being increasingly used globally by powerful and wealthy people as an abusive legal tool to threaten journalists into silence with eye-watering fines. How can “the fourth estate” truly hold power to account, when those in power can so easily dismantle and destroy their means of doing so?
At a time of devastating global conflict, the ability for journalists to report on stories free from the threat of harm, imprisonment, lawsuits or death has never been more important. To protect journalism itself, international and national law must work harder to protect the individuals most at risk. Without the threat of retribution for powerful individuals, the cycle of censorship will only continue.
11 Jun 24 | Israel, Moldova, News and features, Russia, Ukraine
Israel’s High Court of Justice this week heard a petition challenging new legislation allowing a ban on foreign broadcasters deemed a threat to national security.
Known as the Al Jazeera law, in honour of its inaugural target, this allows the communications minister, with the consent of the prime minister and the committee of national security, to impose far-reaching sanctions.
“There is no doubt that there is a violation of freedom of expression here,” the High Court panel’s head, Justice Yitzhak Amit, told the hearing.
Yet Israel’s May shuttering of Al Jazeera – described as a “terror channel” by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – passed without much domestic concern.
Any outrage was limited to Israel’s small liberal left wing, even though in banning Al Jazeera, Israel joins the august ranks of countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain.
The issue is, of course, rife with politicisation. Al Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, as is part of the Hamas leadership, and is hardly free from bias. Nonetheless, this law can be used in the future to ban other foreign broadcasters that are deemed to pose an amorphous “threat to national security”.
And crucially, it includes an “override clause” that even Israel’s high court cannot overturn.
It’s important to note that countries often introduce special legislation affecting media in times of war and crisis, amid legitimate national security considerations.
Ukraine is an obvious case in point, not least because it faces such a particularly sharp threat from Russian disinformation.
A year before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky moved to shut down three pro-Russian TV channels judged to effectively be weapons in Russia’s information war.
Immediately after the full-scale invasion, all national news channels were united into a 24-hour broadcast, and a subsequent newly revised media law was intended to be muscular enough to withstand Russian malign influence.
Yet while criticism of the government in times of war – especially one being fought with a citizen’s army – is not easy, Ukrainian journalists have quite effectively held their leaders to account.
Reporting on corruption in the defence ministry, for instance, heralded the minister’s resignation of defence minister Oleskiy Reznikov and government pledges for greater transparency.
And critically, the Government’s moves in the information sphere have not gone unchallenged. Ukraine, with its history of authoritarian government and a media scene under the sway of oligarchs and political interests, knows all too well how fragile free expression can be.
While officials made clear that the telethon would be completely free of government intervention, not all outlets were included, and critics note that some of those excluded such as Espresso, Channel 5, and Priamyi, had often criticised Zelensky and to varying degrees were associated with his predecessor Petro Poroshenko.
And there was widespread criticism of the March 2023 media law for handing too much power to government intervention, with the same measures to counter Russian disinformation all too easily abused to limit critical voices.
In neighbouring Moldova, scores of pro-Russian outlets were banned under the state of emergency declared immediately after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than two years later, the TV channels and websites remain blocked despite the end of the state of emergency, and many critics would argue that the country remains as vulnerable as ever to Russian propaganda.
What is needed to ensure that national security considerations do not become a tool to control free expression is a robust civil society push back and an ongoing debate on the boundary between freedom of speech and the fight against fake news.
In Israel, where the national narrative has become an inextricable part of the conflict itself, the public appears increasingly supine in the face of the official version of events.
Israel has long championed its diverse and outspoken media sector as a sign of a vibrant democracy, alongside robust laws that purport to protect free expression. But civil society and media are now experiencing repression from both official and non-state sources, with Palestinian citizens of Israel bearing the brunt.
Anti-war protests have been curtailed and violently repressed; Jewish and Arab teachers fired over left-wing posts on social media, while students have faced disciplinary actions for simply supporting a ceasefire.
Dissenting voices and journalists are being directly targeted and doxxed. Just after 7 October, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi suggested police be empowered to arrest those accused of spreading information that could harm morale or fuel enemy propaganda.
Haaretz journalist Rogel Alpher this week noted a column in Yisrael Hayom which called for articles in the penal law that mandate execution or life imprisonment enforced on those disseminating “defeatist propaganda” or “abetting the enemy”.
Of course, Israel is not about to start executing journalists. The vast majority of extreme proposals do not make it into law, just as most anti-war arrests do not lead to indictments. Even bans on specific outlets are not total; Al Jazeera can still be accessed with absolute ease online.
But this all helps create a chilling atmosphere, serving to normalise such actions and increasing self-censorship.
Israel’s Hebrew-language media has chosen to self-censor to such a large extent that Jewish Israelis experience what Esther Solomon, editor-in-chief of Haaretz English, describes as a “cognitive gap” between the content they consume and what the rest of the world sees.
This means that anything confronting the profoundly uncomfortable reality of war and contradicting the accepted IDF narrative is seen as traitorous and a threat to national security.
The public acceptance of vaguely worded censorious media laws seems to fit all too well with the ongoing slow and creeping deterioration of Israel’s democracy.
31 May 24 | Bahrain, News and features
Your Excellencies,
Ahead of and during the upcoming 56th Session of the Human Rights Council, we urge you and your delegation to raise concerns over the human rights situation in Bahrain, particularly regarding the continued arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and opposition leaders in Bahrain, many of whom have been wrongfully imprisoned since 2011.
Thirteen years since Bahrain’s popular uprising, systemic injustice has intensified and political repression targeting dissidents, human rights defenders, clerics and independent civil society has effectively shut any space for the peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression or peaceful activism in the country. Despite a series of legal reforms and the creation of new national human rights institutions, based on recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, an independent panel commissioned by the King in response to international concern over the suppression of the 2011 protests, most of these measures have had little impact in practice.
The recent royal pardon issued by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on 8 April 2024, on the occasion of Eid Al-Fitr and the King’s Silver Jubilee, was a significant move. The pardon included the release of more than 650 political prisoners, marking a change in state policy from previous royal pardons, according to research conducted by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy. While the gesture is notable, Bahrain authorities must cease unjustly prosecuting their critics in the first place.
We also express concern that this pardon excluded many who played significant roles in the 2011 pro-democracy uprising, with an estimated 550 political prisoners remaining behind bars.
As Eid al-Adha approaches on 16 June 2024, and ahead of HRC56, we see a critical window of opportunity to advocate for further releases. We request that your governments continue to monitor the situation in Bahrain and raise concerns with Bahraini authorities at the highest level, publicly and privately. We further call on you to demand the immediate and unconditional release of all individuals imprisoned for their political beliefs and the retrial of those convicted and sentenced to death following unfair trials in full compliance with international fair trial standards.
Cases of concern
We bring to your attention specific cases of individuals who remain unjustly imprisoned in Bahrain, in violation of their human rights and despite widespread international condemnation.
- Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, a Bahraini-Danish human rights defender, has been arbitrarily detained since 2011 for his role in peaceful demonstrations. Bahraini authorities have subjected Al-Khawaja to severe physical, sexual, and psychological torture, and his health has deteriorated significantly during his prolonged imprisonment.
- Abduljalil Al-Singace, an award-winning human rights defender and blogger, remains arbitrarily detained since 2011 after being sentenced to life in prison on charges of “plotting to overthrow the government”. He is now approaching three years since he began a solid-food hunger strike after authorities confiscated his research manuscripts, sustaining himself only on multivitamin liquid supplements, tea with milk and sugar, water, and salts. Despite his disability and hunger strike, he continues to be denied adequate medical care.
- Hassan Mushaima, an opposition leader aged 76, is serving a life sentence solely for exercising his right to freedom of association and expression. Over the past few months, his health has deteriorated. He continues to be denied access to adequate healthcare and remains arbitrarily detained. Since they were transferred to Kanoo Medical Center in 2021, Al-Singace and Mushaima have been held in prolonged solitary confinement and denied access to sunlight.
- Sheikh Ali Salman, the leader of dissolved opposition party Al-Wefaq, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2018 on politically motivated charges related to espionage. He has been imprisoned since 2014 on a separate conviction related to speeches he delivered in 2014 against parliamentary elections that his party boycotted. Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience and called his conviction “a travesty of justice.”
Over a decade ago, the Human Rights Council issued a statement of concern “about guarantees of due process in the trials of 13 political activists who had their sentences, including life sentences, upheld in January 2013.” We note that of the “13 political activists” referenced, ten remain arbitrarily detained, including some of those listed above.
In 2023, the Committee to Protect Journalists documented the imprisonment of journalists, including Ali Mearaj and Hassan Qambar, who were excluded from the recent releases.
Additionally, twenty-six individuals in Bahrain remain on death row at risk of imminent execution, many of whom allege torture and unfair trials. Mohammed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa, who have now spent over a decade unlawfully detained, were sentenced to death in an unfair trial marred by torture allegations.
Conclusions and recommendations
In light of the above, we respectfully urge your delegation to take a proactive stance in the lead-up to Eid al-Adha and during the upcoming session and:
- Call on Bahrain to immediately and unconditionally release all individuals imprisoned solely for exercising their human rights.
- Address these developments in your national capacity and jointly with other states, including during the Interactive Dialogues with the Special Rapporteurs and Independent Expert on health, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, independence of judges and lawyers and international solidarity.
- Issue a statement raising concern about individual cases of human rights defenders and opposition leaders who continue to be arbitrarily detained in Bahrain in violation of international law.
With assurances of our highest consideration.
Sincerely,
- Access Now
- ALQST
- Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
- Amnesty International
- Article 19
- Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR)
- Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
- DAWN
- English PEN
- European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
- Fair Square
- Femena
- Freedom House
- Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
- Human Rights First
- Human Rights Sentinel
- Human Rights Watch
- IFEX
- Index on Censorship
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- MENA Rights Group
- No Peace Without Justice
- PEN America
- PEN International
- Rafto
- Redress
- Scholars at Risk
- The #FreeAlKhawaja Campaign
- The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
- World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
