Over the 50 years of our existence, Index has consistently supported the artistic freedom of those whose work may cause offence. While we recognise people’s religious beliefs are deeply held – and protect their right to practise their faith without fear – we do not have blasphemy laws in this country for good reason.
This is why we backed Salman Rushdie during the Satanic Verses affair, it is why we backed Martin Scorsese when his Last Temptation of Christ caused offence to some Christians; it is why we backed the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo. And it is also why we back the makers of The Lady of Heaven, a film which has offended some Muslims and provoked demonstrations across the UK.
The Lady of Heaven, which is about the daughter of the Prophet Mohammed and depicts his image, has seen hundreds protest in Bolton, Birmingham and Sheffield. In an email to Cineworld Bolton Council of Mosques chairman, Asif Patel, said the film was “underpinned with a sectarian ideology” and “misrepresents orthodox historical narratives and disrespects the most esteemed individuals of Islamic history”, as reported by Bolton News.
That might be the case but these should not be grounds for pulling a film. No one is, after all, forcing anyone to watch this film. Nor is offence a defence. As the Turkish writer Elif Shafak wrote in Index on Censorship following the Charlie Hebdo attacks:
“It is perfectly human to be offended in the face of mockery, opprobrium or slander. That is understandable. Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians or agnostics, we can all feel offended by something someone says, writes or does. But that is where the line must be drawn. What is inhuman and unacceptable is to resort to violence and shed blood in response.”
While no blood has yet to be shed in the case of The Lady of Heaven, Cineworld have cited protecting their staff out of concern for their safety as their motivation.
We fully respect the impulse to want to keep people safe. Indeed Index work with a network of people around the globe who are at grave risk because of their speech. Their safety is always our primary concern, above getting a story out. But what we aim to do is both – protect the person and tell the story. There is usually a way and we try to find it. Because without stories humanity is all the worse, not the better. And not all stories please all people.
Ultimately we don’t want to live in a country where no offence is caused. We want to live in a country of robust debate and artistic freedom, where the offence can be explained and lessons learned. None of that happens when we threaten people into silence.
The activist Aisha Ali-Khan wrote on Twitter:
“I fully intend to watch #LadyofHeaven and make my own mind up, along with many other Muslim friends too. @cineworld better not pull it anywhere else!”
We hope that Cineworld reverse the decision and allow her that right.
“Andrei Aliaksandrau is a merry fellow and a joker, a manager and a poet, an idealist and a pragmatist all rolled into one. He is persistent in defending his point of view, direct in his convictions and sensitive to falsehood. I didn’t like arguing with him because he’s stubborn. I always knew I could count on him because he’s honest.
“Aliaksandrau is a knight, a romantic. In company he jokes and chats a lot – but it never tires. It’s fun with him.
“At one time, we gathered for poetry readings at our house. I remember once Andrei brought a jar of pickles made by his mother. They were the most delicious pickles I had ever tasted.
“It is too painful to think that now I can’t call Andrei and our friend Ales Lipai (he died in the summer of 2018) and say, “Guys, let’s get together on Saturday!” and start discussing a topic for the meeting. Aliaksandrau would not like my topic. He would suggest another one. We would have a friendly row for a while and would conclude to sort it out at the meeting place. I would say, ‘OK, Aliaksandrau. We are looking forward to you on Saturday at six!’ And I would know that Andrei would come on time.
Egyptian pro-democracy activist and blogger Abdelrahman ‘Moka’ Tarek has been released from prison. Moka works with the Al-Nedal Centre for Rights and Freedoms to defend freedom of expression and prisoner’s rights in Egypt. He won Index on Censorship’s Freedom of Expression Award for Campaigning in 2021. In particular, the board of judges noted his commitment to protecting freedom of expression and his courage despite overwhelming adversity.
Moka has experienced persistent state harassment, arbitrary detentions, and abuse over the last decade. He was first detained in 2013 when he was involved in protests against military trials for civilians which were organised in front of the Egyptian Senate. He was released on probation in October 2018, but was forcibly disappeared a year later in September 2019. He was eventually placed in pre-trial detention and accused of “joining a terrorist group, spreading false news, and misusing social media”.
On two separate occasions, courts ordered the release of Moka. However, the release orders were blocked by the addition of new cases. Moka was prevented from communicating with his family and accessing legal counsel. He was subjected to poor detention conditions, torture, and abuse, including the use of electric shocks and prolonged solitary confinement. In 2021, Moka was transferred to the prison hospital after experiencing health complications due to a 53-day long hunger strike in protest of the poor conditions.
Reacting to his release, Ruth Smeeth, CEO of Index on Censorship said: “I am delighted that Moka has finally been released. We stand united with Moka and his detention was a travesty of justice. Today our thoughts are with him and his family who must be completely relieved.”
Tarek’s release comes after the reactivation of the Presidential Pardons Committee by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and the subsequent appeal from eight Egyptian human rights groups for authorities to provide more transparency and clarity into review processes.
While this may indicate a shift towards more openness and transparency, Egyptian activists still face severe censorship and intimidation. Information received by Amnesty International suggests that those released will be monitored by Egypt’s National Security Agency, and that they may be threatened with re-arrest if they engage in activism.
A total of 986 inmates received a presidential pardon in May 2022 during the Eid al-Fitr celebrations, according to a statement released by the Egyptian Ministry of Interior. Egypt is estimated to have a prison population of more than 119,000, 31% of which are held on remand.
For the four months since the final charge was brought against me, I have hardly received any letters and I don’t know if my letters reach those I continue to write regularly to; more or less stable postal communications remain only with my parents.
But I know and feel your support from rare, undiverted carrier pigeons, regular cute sendings and delicious parcels, for which I am constantly grateful;
I know that many of my friends and colleagues were going to see me at trial in our case that begins on 6 June; but our trial will be closed “for the purpose of not disclosing a secret protected by the law”. What kind of secret this is, I don’t know yet, it is too well protected, and I have stayed in the pre-trial detention centre under investigation for even less than a year and a half; how am I to know?
Perhaps the secret is that the people who will be judged are not guilty of anything; at the very least, I will not plead guilty to what I am accused of.
I am going to the court without unnecessary illusions, but with a clear conscience, and even with excitement.
I will see at last the people dear to me; it is a pity, of course, that I will see them in the dock, but this is now a popular meeting place for good people; and I will be in this place next to good people whose friendship I am proud of.
Irina Levshina is a person with a kind heart and iron principles, a super editor, a pro of the highest level. Dima Novozhilov is exceptionally decent, dutiful, responsive and supportive (another undeniable advantage is that he is a Liverpool fan). And Irina Zlobina is a person with the most unimaginable combination of kindness, intelligence, and beauty in all its forms that I have met in my life.
I’m a happy man. Only a really lucky man could get into such high-class company. Only a really lucky man could get all of you as friends – fellow citizens, colleagues, kind and good people. Thank you for all your warmth, solidarity and support! With them, I feel absolutely calm and steady. It is a pity that I cannot personally congratulate my mother on her birthday, which she will celebrate one of these days. But we will definitely catch up. Life goes on. We go on. History – our history – keeps moving on. Nothing ends.
There was a time when Zhou Fengsuo wanted to change his name. It had become synonymous with the Tiananmen Square protests, which he had an instrumental role in leading. He’d helped with general organisation, he’d delivered speeches in the square, he’d provided medical help for those during the hunger strike –just a few of the hats he wore. For this Zhou was named as number five on the Chinese government’s most wanted list and was arrested shortly after the crackdown. He spent a year in Qincheng Prison, a maximum-security prison in Beijing, after which he was exiled to Yangyuan in Hebei province, a poor, rural area to be “re-educated”. Constant monitoring and police harassment became a part of his life and he struggled to earn a living. He couldn’t even get a passport to leave the country.
“I wanted to change my name to have a normal life,” he told Index ahead of the 33rd anniversary of the protests and the massacre that brought them to a terrifying and devastating end.
“But that was then,” he added.
Today the importance of keeping his name is paramount. The Chinese government would gladly erase it, alongside all memory of the massacre.
“We do whatever we can to preserve the memory and preserve the truth,” Zhou said, who has remained a staunch advocate for human rights in the years since, including being president of Humanitarian China and the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation. When we speak he is working on a Tiananmen museum in the town where he now lives in the New York metro area (he was finally given a passport and left for the USA in 1996).
Zhou is understandably proud of his role in the protest movements, which called for greater freedoms, especially in relation to freedom of speech and the media. They had been happening in pockets of China for several years by then and built to a crescendo in the spring of ‘89, described as like a “volcanic eruption” by Zhou. The main ones that took place in Tiananmen Square from April through to June were “China’s version of a festival of freedom” he said.
“It was exhilarating because for the first time people could have a taste of freedom. These were very joyful, hopeful moments, even though there was a sense of defiance,” he added. He has a particularly fond memory of 18April 1989.
“I made a speech at the monument of the People’s Heroes where I compared the US Bill of Rights to the Chinese constitution. For me it was the first time I could speak out on these issues. These were my own views that I felt really strongly about and I had had to keep them to myself and all of a sudden, I was there in an important place with thousands listening. There was such a powerful feeling of freedom in the air. I was overwhelmed by the passion that people showed.”
Zhou said that even the most marginalised people felt there was hope. They even joked that thieves stopped stealing.
Zhou remembers the run-up to 4 June 1989 as one of the most peaceful times. He spoke of how people made homemade meals to send to the protesters and that “Coca Cola had just arrived in China and was considered a luxury – people would buy it for the students as a way to show support. It was incredible the feeling of solidarity.”
But then came the tanks.
“It was like an invasion of Beijing by armed troops,” said Zhou, who reckons there were around a quarter of a million soldiers by the time they turned on the students on the evening of 3 June.
“It was brutally senseless.”
Many of Zhou’s friends died on that fateful night and in the following days, with plenty of others arrested and put in jail.
“The government are guilty of murdering their own people,” he said.
No-one knows for certain exactly how many people were killed. Shortly after, the Chinese government said just 200 civilians had died. Other estimates place it in the region of thousands. In 2017, documents from the British ambassador to China at the time, Sir Alan Donald, said that as many as 10,000 had actually died.
The Chinese government has gone out of its way to erase the exact figure and surrounding memories. Any references to Tiananmen are carefully removed from books and the internet. The country’s censors work overtime to stay ahead of the game, blocking anything from obvious references like #tank to more obscure ones (#35 for 31 May plus four days; #6+si for the sixth month and si meaning four in Mandarin). Sometimes they even block the words “today” and “tomorrow”. Commemorative events – well-nigh impossible to hold in mainland China – are now off the agenda in Hong Kong too, which for years hosted a large memorial event in Victoria Park. Also in Hong Kong, the Pillar of Shame statue to honour those killed in the square was recently removed. There is a rumour it might reappear in Taiwan.
Despite the dangers, when it was the 25th anniversary of the massacre, Zhou returned to China, albeit briefly. He snuck back in due to a change in China’s immigration policy that allowed people in transit to enter for 72 hours without a visa. During that trip he was interrogated by the police who had also been in Beijing in 1989 but he was allowed to leave for the USA again.
Thirty-three years on and China remains as jumpy about the event as if it was yesterday.
As China’s long arm stretches further overseas, the attempts to eradicate its memory have arrived on distant shores. Just two weeks ago Zhou was in Prague on a panel with the Chinese dissident artist Badiucao. When there the event’s curator received a call from the Chinese embassy. The person who called her said that if she continued with the event it would hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and would damage Czech-Chinese relations. She ignored the call, but it left her and Zhou spooked.
“It was strange because Michelle didn’t publish that number and was not sure how they got hold of it,” he explained.
The Chinese government has found willing participants in this erasure game in the form of companies with close ties to China. Two years ago, for example, Zoom closed Zhou’s paid account a week after he held an event discussing the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. He also had a run-in with LinkedIn, who temporarily blocked his page and posts from being seen within China.
Zhou says that “US companies who do business with China will try to stay away from people like me.”
“Global trade and digital communications have enabled China to exert control even in the US. This wasn’t possible before, even in Nazi times. But China is much more dangerous now than Nazi Germany,” he said, revealing that over the years it’s become harder to stay in touch with his family back in China. He has tried to distance himself “so they don’t get in trouble”, calling it a “price I have paid for my conscience”.
There’s no doubt that Tiananmen matters, whether it be a year ago, 20 years ago, 50 or 100. But it feels particularly relevant looking at the current Chinese landscape. Thirty-three years after students took to the square, the very same universities that they came from have erected fences in response to students protesting draconian Covid measures; in Shanghai, the lockdown has been so extreme that some people have jumped out of their own windows to their death. Traces of these recent events are being scrubbed from the internet as we speak. The path that the leaders chose when they sent the tanks in is one that we are still walking today, but it’s sadly narrower. Control is near absolute.
“No matter how rich, people can lose their freedom and be prisoners in their own home,” said Zhou. “They can be starved to death. Shanghai has amongst the highest house prices in the world but the government can use technology to control the people.”
And just like Tiananmen, we might never know how many people will have died as a result of the government’s ruthless Zero Covid policy.
“This is why Tiananmen is so important,” he added. “There’s no limit to what the government can do to violate human rights. It’s beyond the worst imagination.”
Zhou holds on to the one major positive that came out of the Tiananmen protests though.
“They demonstrated to the world that the Chinese people loved freedom. We were willing to fight for it and many people lost their lives for it. It showed the world what a different China could be. Today’s China is a nightmare. There could be a different China.’
People in authoritarian countries often feel as though they are living in a multiverse, with different versions of reality. Iran is a case in point.
On Thursday 26 May, up to 100,000 people including families with children flocked to the Azadi Stadium in Tehran to celebrate the release of a new pop song. This may seem little different from, say, crowds of screaming teenagers going to Wembley Stadium to worship Harry Styles.
Calling Salam Farmandeh “pop” is a bit of a stretch. The song, which translates as Hello Commander in English, is state-backed and tells the story of a young child who is speaking to Imam Mahdi, a messianic figure in Islam who rids the world of evil and injustice. The song also references the country’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.
The pro-government Tehran Times said the song’s performer Abouzar Rouhi had risen “to national, if not international, prominence for his tuneful song” while recognising that Rouhi “isn’t a singer in the true sense of the word”.
Government spokesman Ali Bahadori Jahromi said the song and concert was “a manifestation of [the children of] the 1390s [the 2010s] pledging allegiance to the Revolution”.
In an alternate reality at the same time, demonstrators also took to the streets of Iran following a collapse of a building on Monday 23 May in Abadan in south-western Iran in which at least 31 people are known to have died and scores more injured. The collapse of the Metropol building has been blamed on developer greed and corruption but the protests have become sharper following indifference to the plight of the families of the dead and injured.
Thousands of security forces have now descended on Abadan and other regional cities and protesters have been met with teargas and even bullets, with the response bordering on martial law in some cases.
There have also been protests in the Tehran suburb of Shahr-e Ray, where protesters chanted “Death to the dictator” in reference to Ali Khamenei.
“Public expressions of dissent are not tolerated in Iran,” said Hannah Somerville, editor of IranWire English, “and even less so in the border areas, which the mullahs regard as posing a heightened ‘security’ risk due to the diverse demographic makeup and higher rates of deprivation.”
She said: “The Supreme Leader’s first statement acknowledging the incident came three days too late. When it did arrive, it was desultory at best. That was ultimately what sparked the protests late last week, together with state media outlets deliberately minimising the disaster – for instance, by making reference only to ‘superficial injuries’ and not the number of dead. The head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting openly told a group of students at Sharif University of Technology on Monday that he had been asked to limit coverage to an hour or two at most.”
By contrast the coverage of the alternate reality – the Hello Commander concert – was extensive.
“The timing of this propaganda-fest could not have been worse, and will doubtless have further incensed any devastated families in Abadan who saw it on their TV screens,” said Somerville.
Following the protests, the internet has been disrupted in several major cities in the Khuzestan region including Abadan: a tactic to restrict the free flow of information that the Iranian state always deploys during times of popular unrest.
Mahsa Alimardani, senior researcher for MENA at Article 19, says the internet has been disconnected from 5pm to early morning on most days since protests started.
The authorities are always quick to cover up the reasons for the internet shutdowns.
“The Telecommunications Infrastructure Company announced on 26 May there would be nationwide disruptions related to infrastructure changes and updates,” said Alimardani.
The shutdowns have affected coverage of the protests in the country where WhatsApp and Instagram are both hugely popular.
The government has previously restricted coverage of protests on Instagram, said Alimardani.
“We had issues with protest content removals in July 2021, when we documented over 200 cases of protest footage being removed from Instagram,” she said. “Discussions with Instagram back then led to a temporary exception during the protests to allow for the chant that was being labelled as ‘violent incitement’ by their policies to stay on. The chant is a tradition of all Iran’s protests – “death to the dictator; death to Khamenei; death to the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps]”.
IranWire’s Somerville says the cover-up of the situation in Abadan is a symptom of the government’s obsession with the ‘problem’ of the country’s youth.
“The situation is even more charged because we already know several of the tens of victims of the Metropol collapse were young people, “the youth” being a fixation for both Ali Khamenei and in Islamic Republic revolutionary doctrine, hence the Hello Commander event. This is not a story the regime wants told. The protest suppression and media muzzling are part and parcel of the same effort to make sure the story stays buried along with those young people from Abadan,” she said.
The Iranian government’s efforts to hide the news from Abadan and show their own version of the world were further stymied when Iranian actor Zahra Amir Ebrahimi referenced the situation when accepting the award for best actress at the recent Cannes Film Festival.
Ebrahimi won the award for her portrayal of an investigative journalist in the Persian-language crime thriller Holy Spider, which is based on the true story of Saeed Hanaei, a serial killer who targeted sex workers in the city of Mashad in 2000 and 2001. At the time, Hanaei became a folk hero for the ultra-religious conservatives for “cleansing” the city of prostitution.
Ebrahimi said in her speech, “Although I am very happy at moment, part of my being is sad for the Iranian people who are facing many problems every day. My heart is with the people of Abadan.”
Her comments won’t go down well the Iranian government and its attempts to create an alternate reality where all is well with the world.
On Monday Andrei Aliaksandrau (pictured right) and Irina Zlobina, our friends in Belarus, will finally have their day in court, 511 days after they were detained by Lukashenka’s police.
It may, however, be a little misguided to believe that this will be a free and fair trial. There will be no media present. This will be a closed hearing. Their Belarussian lawyers have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and are prohibited from speaking publicly about the trial. There will be no genuine trial, evidence taken or appeal process.
Andrei and his girlfriend Irina have been charged with treason. Their ‘crime’ was paying the fines of some of the protesters who were arrested after Lukashenka’s sham election. They weren’t even present at the demonstrations. Their potential sentence will be 15 years in a jail cell.
This travesty of justice isn’t occurring in some dim and distant land, but rather only 1,400 miles from where I currently sit.
Andrei and Irina are our friends. Andrei used to work for Index on Censorship – and if all was well, he would now be guiding our work on Ukraine and Russia, ensuring that we were providing a voice for the persecuted. Instead, he is sitting in a jail cell, with 1,214 other political prisoners waiting to learn of his fate. To learn of his partner’s fate. He may be silenced but we are not. So, we have to be his voice.
Today and every day – we are Andrei. We are Irina.
On Monday we will be dedicating our social media to them and their story. Shining a spotlight on the ongoing repressive of Lukashenka’s regime and the effect it is having on our friends, colleagues and those who bravery inspires our work every day.
All we ask of you is a little time and some help – read Andrei and Irina’s testimony on Monday. Read the words of their friends who are scared and share their stories. Because there but for the grace of god go all of us.
Swearing in ceremony of President Idriss Deby Itno of Chad in 2016. Photo: Paul Kagame, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
More than a year after Chad’s former president was killed in battle, the central African country remains in turmoil and freedom of expression remains under attack.
Idriss Déby Itno was killed in April 2021 on the battlefront between government troops and rebels from the Front for Change and Concord in the north of the country. His death was announced just a day after provisional results from the 11th April president election showed he had won re-election.
The election result was widely seen as dubious. Leading opposition figure Saleh Kebzabo had withdrawn from the elections after family members of another candidate were killed during a deadly shootout.
Chad has been under the increasingly authoritarian grip of Idriss Déby Itno since 1990 when he seized power in a coup.
In March 2018, Déby had implemented a social media ban following widespread public protests against constitutional changes that would have allowed him to rule until 2033. The ban was lifted only 16 months later.
The country has been the target of regular internet shutdowns by the government. The KeepItOn coalition says there were more than 900 days of internet shutdowns, including throttling of internet speeds, total internet blackouts as well as the social media blocks, between 2016 and 2021.
After Déby’s death, the military took control, dissolving parliament and putting a transitional military council (TMC) in charge of the country under the leadership of Déby’s son Mahamat.
The council promised free and democratic elections within 18 months, following a national reconciliation dialogue that would involve parties from all sides.
In September, the TMC appointed a 93-member national transitional council to perform the functions of government. However, some prominent members of Wakit Tama, a coalition of human rights groups and opposition figures, who had denounced the coup were excluded for this.
That process has since moved slowly, and free and fair elections look unlikely any time soon. An inability to agree on who should be involved in the council and any national reconciliation dialogue has slowed the process to a crawl, although some of the parties are now in the Qatari capital Doha taking part in what is being called a pre-dialogue, a process that has already lasted two months.
The transition to fair and free elections has now been thrown into even greater disarray after a number of civil society leaders were detained during protests on 14th May organised by Wakit Tama.
During the protests, several symbols of France’s colonial power, including a number of Total petrol stations, were attacked and policemen injured. Wakit Tama and the four arrested have denied any involvement in the violence.
The four arrested were Gounoung Vaima Gan Fare, secretary general of the Union des Syndicats du Tchad, Youssouf Korom Ahmat, secretary general of the Syndicat des commercants fournisseurs du Tchad, Koudé Mbainaissem, a lawyer and president of the Association for Freedom of Expression, as well as Wakit Tama coordinator Max Loalngar.
The protests were intended to highlight human rights violations in the country, call for the inclusion of human rights defenders in the transition and oppose a continuing French military presence in Chad.
Opposition leader Saleh Kebzabo said the protests threatened the process of reconciliation.
Three days after the protests he tweeted, “In Doha, there is a Chad in miniature where nearly 200 Chadians have been engaged in a debate for two months to participate in the [national reconciliation dialogue]. All Chadians are waiting for this unique moment for a real rebuilding of the country, and I believe it is a unique opportunity.”
“During this time, we learn that other Chadians are preparing the [dialogue] in their own way by marches to ransack and loot, against the French presence in Chad. This is a false debate that risks hiding all our real problems, which are unfortunately many.”
The four are currently being detained at the high security Mossoro prison and will face a court hearing on 6th June, although none has yet been charged with any offence. Front Line Defenders believes that they are being targeted “solely as a result of their legitimate and peaceful work in defence of human rights”. Human Rights Watch calls the detentions “politically motivated”.
Despite the pre-dialogue in Doha, the government has now postponed the main dialogue on a transition to democracy to some unspecified date in the future. The omens are not good.
Andrei’s beloved Liverpool FC has won two trophies this season and will play UEFA Champions League final at the end of May. Has he been able to follow the Reds? We simply don’t know. Credit: Andrei Aliaksandrau
Belarus journalist and human rights defender Andrei Aliaksandrau marks 500 days behind bars in his native Belarus today. The 44-year-old spent several years working with Index on Censorship, as well as coordinating the Civic Solidarity Platform, a coalition of 60 human rights groups. He is a passionate Liverpool FC supporter. He is not only our former colleague, but also our friend.
Arrested along with his girlfriend Iryna Zlobina, another political prisoner of the brutal regime of Alexander Lukashenko, Andrei faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted. The accusation? “Treason to the State”. He was arrested after paying off fines given to journalists and protesters who took to the streets following the fraudulent 2020 presidential election, “won” by Lukashenko.
It’s hard to imagine how Andrei feels about his freedom being deprived in such a cruel and unfair way. How many major worldwide events since January 2021 has he been prevented from following more closely? The Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, the migration crisis on the border between Poland and Belarus and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Surely Andrei would be taking a stand on these matters and collaborating in some way, but that basic right was ruthlessly taken from his hands.
Has Andrei been able to follow the news surrounding his beloved Liverpool FC? The Reds narrowly missed winning the Premier League in the last round of the 2021-2022 season. “You’ll Never Walk Alone,” was chanted in unison by everyone in the Anfield stadium after the match against Wolverhampton. Given the chance, Andrei would undoubtedly have joined in. On 28 May, Liverpool faces Real Madrid in Paris, in the final of the European Champions League. Most likely, televisions in prison (if there are any) will not show the match, and our friend will not see the emotions of the game. Instead, he will have to follow it with his heart. But in fact, he might not even know that his team is playing such an important match.
Andrei was jailed just as the first Covid-19 vaccinations were becoming available. Has he even had his first jab, let alone the two or three that wider society has been offered? If not, his health is at risk in addition to his liberty.
Currently, there are more than 1,000 political prisoners in Belarus, as far as we know. As the days go by, our duty grows to do everything we can to help Andrei, Iryna and all of the others imprisoned merely for exercising their free expression. We must release them from this nightmare. There is an online petition that everyone can sign to demand Andrei and Iryna’s urgent and unconditional release. You can stand with us by signing your name alongside ours.
The free press in Belarus is under threat like never before in the wake of the disputed re-election of Aleksandr Lukanshenka in August 2020, with journalists being threatened, fined, arrested and tortured for speaking out against the country’s ruler. Indeed, former Index employee and contributor Andrei Aliksandrau remains in prison, facing a sentence of up to 15 years for alleged “high treason”.
A year after the elections, the Belarusian authorities went a step further in clamping down on media freedom, banning the country’s journalism body, the Belarusian Association of Journalists.
Index spoke with BAJ chair Andrei Bastunets in the wake of the award, talking about the worsening situation for independent media and how BAJ continues to support press freedom.
Is it still possible to work as an independent journalist in Belarus following the start of the war in Ukraine?
“The key problems for Belarusian independent journalists arose before the war in Ukraine, and even before the 2020 presidential election. But after the elections – and journalists’ coverage of post-election protests – the pressure on the media, journalists and bloggers has increased dramatically (although earlier Belarus had bad ranking positions in international free speech ratings and indexes too). In 2021, many journalists and even entire editorial offices were forced to flee the country in order to avoid criminal prosecution by the Belarusian authorities and to be able to continue their professional activities.”
“A lot of Belarusian journalists – more than 100 – who were forced to leave their country chose Ukraine as a place of refuge. But after the start of the Kremlin’s war against this country, they had to leave their homes and belongings again and move to other countries. Journalists and bloggers who continue to work in Belarus face additional persecution for expressing their anti-war position. However they spread truthful information on what is happening. Last week, Baranavichy-based journalist Yury Hantsarevich was detained and accused of passing on information about Russian troop transfers in Belarus.”
How many journalists are still in detention in Belarus?
Andrei Bastunets, chairperson of the Belarusian Association of Journalists
“There are 24 journalists behind bars at the moment. Eight of them are serving their terms in prison, and the rest are in custody pending trial. All are deemed political prisoners by Belarusian human rights organisations.”
“In the first four months of 2022, five sentences were handed down against journalists in criminal cases – from 1.3 to 2.5 years in prison. The maximum punishment for a journalist has been a 15-year strict regime sentence for blogger Ihar Losik, who was a consultant for the Belarusian service of Radio Liberty.”
“My friend and former Index staff member Andrei Aliaksandrau has been in jail since January 2021; and recently the Belarusian Investigative Committee reported on the charges against him under four criminal articles, including Article 356 (high treason) which outlines a punishment of up to 15 years in prison.”
How is the war (or special military operation as Putin would have it) being reported in Belarus?
“There is a difference in the approaches of state-run and independent media outlets. In the news agenda of the independent media, the war in Ukraine is being called ‘war’ and it is on their front pages. These media outlets are publishing mostly online now because they do not have an opportunity to publish in print after printing houses and state monopoly distribution chains were banned from cooperation with the independent press. The state television and other government-backed media in Belarus are reporting on the war in Ukraine spreading the narratives of the Russian pro-Kremlin media.”
Is the BAJ still operating and is it having to do so from exile?
“In August 2021, the Supreme Court of Belarus ordered the dissolution of the organisation, at the request of the country’s Ministry of Justice. Now, BAJ is not an organisation registered by the Ministry, it is not a formal structure. It is about 1,300 people united in implementing their common idea and their mission – to expand the space of free speech in Belarus. And an official’s resolution has not affected our activities. Most of the organisation’s leadership had to leave the country after a series of police raids and interrogations by investigators, after arrests of our colleagues and friends, but we continue our work from abroad. We treat all media outlets of Belarus, regardless of whether they stayed in the country or moved abroad, as a single Belarus media sector. And we are providing all the necessary and possible support to this media sector.”
How important is the recognition through awards of BAJ, such as the Unesco award recently?
“We regard the UNESCO award as support for the entire independent journalistic community in Belarus. By the way, within literally two days, BAJ received three awards. In addition to UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize, there was the award from the Swedish section of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Difference Day Honorary Title for Freedom of Expression from Brussels ULB and VUB universities. They are very important for our organisation as appreciation of our work, but even more as a high assessment of Belarusian journalists’ work in extremely difficult conditions. And, of course, it is important for us that Belarus has returned to the front pages of the international media. Although, we understand indeed that current events in Ukraine are attracting general attention as the state of affairs in the region and of the entire system of world security formed after WWII depend on their development.”
The Prince of Wales delivers the Queen’s Speech during the State Opening of Parliament 2022. Alastair Grant/PA Wire/PA Images
Unintended consequences and ideological incoherence. These phrases have dominated all discussions I have had in recent days about the British Government’s current approach to freedom of speech and expression.
There are now at least six pieces of legislation, outlined in last week’s Queen’s speech, which will be debated by the UK Parliament, which have a direct impact of our collective ability, in the UK, to exercise our rights to free expression. As individual pieces of legislation some are of value, but others are seemingly a political tool to set the scene for a battle about culture wars at the next British General Election, rather than to fix a problem in our society. That would be bad enough, but when considered in the round, rather than as individual laws, we are seeing a hotchpotch approach to free speech which is both ideologically incoherent and inconsistent as well as having numerous unintended consequences.
The best case in point is the proposed Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which sets out to protect academic endeavour on campus, aiming to ensure that some of the most controversial and/or obscure issues are protected areas of academic enquiry. The Bill aims to give academics stronger protections in law to both study and discuss these issues. I have written previously about my concern that this is attempting to fix a problem that doesn’t exist and that most of the proposed provisions are already accessible under other legal frameworks, but as a principle how could Index on Censorship not seek to protect academic freedom both at home and abroad? But that brings to me to one of the inherent contradictions in the Government’s overall approach.
The Bill would provide legal protections to enable an academic to give a lecture on replacement theory – the idea that white populations risk becoming minorities as a result of immigration and high birth rates among migrants – something which I consider to be a racist and pernicious doctrine.
Replacement theory, while abhorrent, is not considered to be illegal speech, it could however be viewed as harmful speech. If the lecture was, however, then placed on a social media platform, under the Government’s proposals in the Online Safety Bill, it could be considered to be “legal but harmful” content and subject to deletion. So, you could give a lecture using protected speech in an auditorium, but your students wouldn’t be able to access it online, to debate and challenge it, and other academics wouldn’t be able to challenge the assertions of the controversial academic in any meaningful way online. So how does that protect free speech?
The British Government is also proposing a new Bill of Rights to enshrine UK human rights in a post-Brexit world. The Justice Secretary, Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, has stated that: “We will still be clamping down on those who try and use either media or free speech to incite violence, to radicalise terrorists, or to threaten children. All of those safeguards will be in place. But we’ve got to be able to strengthen free speech, the liberty that guards all of our other freedoms, and stop it being whittled away surreptitiously, sometimes without us really being conscious of it. So it will have a different status in the pecking order of rights and I think that will go a long way to protecting this country’s freedom of speech and our history, which has always very strongly protected freedom of speech.”
Which of course to someone like me who cherishes our right to freedom of expression is manna from heaven – or is it? Because at the same time as the Justice Secretary is seeking to make freedom of speech the foundational human right in the British system, the Home Secretary is reviewing the Official Secrets Act in the guise of a new National Security Bill. This time, an exemption for a public interest defence, a longstanding provision which protects journalists when they publish the accounts of whistle-blowers relating to national security, seems to have been forgotten. This completely undermines the premise of media freedom and journalism being able to hold power to account.
The British Government is also proposing new legislation to severely limit the right to protest in the UK under a new Public Order Bill and a new Data Reform Bill which will change our rights to privacy online. The Government is also consulting on new legislation to counter strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in order to stop the misuse of our libel system to silence the media and campaigners.
In other words, the Government is speaking a great deal about freedom of speech in the UK at the moment, but seemingly without any of the relevant departments or Government agencies talking to each other. As the inherent contradictions in their use and definition of free speech become more obvious, we will see a national picture in the UK which is even more convoluted and probably open to legal challenge. Index is calling for a more strategic and defined approach to free speech in the UK and will be working with partners across the political spectrum to try and get to a place that protects all of our speech.
Index on Censorship has today (Monday, 16 May) announced the nominees for the Freedom of Expression Awards, celebrating those courageous artists, journalists and campaigners who risk arrest, assault and imprisonment through their championing of freedom of expression.
Awards will be presented in three categories: the arts, campaigning, and journalism, as well as a Trustees Award. This year’s panel of judges consists of multi-award-winning artist Alison Jackson, artist and writer Coco Fusco, journalist Ben Preston, and Chair of the Index Board of Trustees Sir Trevor Phillips.
Yemeni artist Thiyazen Al-Alwai, whose street art aims to raise awareness of the war in Yemen and the impact on ordinary Yemenis
Mohammed ‘Moe’ Moussa, journalist, podcaster, poet, and founder of the Gaza Poet Society which attempts to amplify the voices of ordinary and struggling Palestinians
Hamlet Lavastida, a Cuban artist who documents human rights abuses and highlights Cuban cultural resistance.
Venezuela Inteligente, a non-profit organisation working to improve engagement online and offline among civil society and media organisations in Venezuela
Malcolm Bidali, aka Noah, who was imprisoned in Qatar after raising awareness of the poor living and working conditions of migrant workers
OVD-Info, a human rights project documenting cases of protest and arrest in Russia, particularly relating to anti-war protests.
Russian journalist and podcaster, Sonya Groysman, who has been labelled a “foreign agent” by Russian authorities
Kashmiri journalist Bilal Hussain who has been increasingly outspoken on issues of censorship as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic;
Huang Xueqin (Sophia), a Chinese journalist, who has reported on the abuse of women in China in the wake of the #MeToo movement.
Several of our nominees have experienced imprisonment for their activism; Xueqin is in detention in China, Sonya has been imprisoned and is currently in exile in Turkey, Hamlet is in exile in Europe following incarceration, Malcolm has previously been imprisoned. Despite the threats and the risks, these brave individuals continue to fight against censorship.
Index on Censorship CEO Ruth Smeeth said:
“The Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards are a hugely important moment in our year. While the reality of the risks many nominees face is sobering, the awards are a moment of celebration, showcasing as they do some of the incredible people standing up for freedom of expression and the democratic rights and values across the globe.
“It is our privilege to bring their stories to light and to celebrate their achievements despite great adversity. Their art, campaigning and written words are a living, breathing testimony to the ability of creativity to make real change – even in the teeth of unimaginable adversity.”
ENDS
NOTES TO EDITORS
The winners will be announced at the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression awards in London on Thursday 27 October.
Broadcast and written interviews, along with images and media content, available upon request.
For all media enquiries contact Luke Holland / [email protected] / 07447 008098
We are currently working hard to ensure that our new website is in perfect working order so we can continue to bring you the latest news, views and content from around the world. You may find that some pages are currently offline or that you are unable to find something that you are looking for. This is only temporary - and we apologise for any convenience this may cause.
Please consider subscribing to our weekly newsletter below, so that you are among the first to hear from our contributors and don't miss anything in future.
Thanks for your understanding.
?
STAY INFORMED.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
?
SUPPORT OUR WORK
Index on Censorship’s work is only possible because of donations from people like you.
Please consider chipping in to help us give a voice to the voiceless:
“Andrei Aliaksandrau is a merry fellow and a joker, a manager and a poet, an idealist and a pragmatist all rolled into one. He is persistent in defending his point of view, direct in his convictions and sensitive to falsehood. I didn’t like arguing with him because he’s stubborn. I always knew I could count on him because he’s honest.
