18 Feb 22 | News and features
It’s difficult to see the multi-millionaire US podcast host Joe Rogan as the victim of censorship. This month, Forbes reported that he had been offered $100m to switch allegiance from the music streamer Spotify to the right-wing free-speech platform Rumble. To his fans, part of the attraction of this former wrestling commentator is that he represents the American everyman, a fearless straight talker in opposition to the mainstream media.
The reality is that, with 11 million listeners, Rogan far outstrips the audience of the established media. Even the most popular TV news hosts cannot dream of such figures: Tucker Carlson, Fox News’s most popular anchor, averages a mere 3.2 million viewers while Jake Tapper of the liberal network CNN struggles to hit viewing figures of one million.
But there is a free expression issue here. When singer-songwriters Neil Young and Joni Mitchell objected to Rogan including misinformation about the Covid vaccine, they could have simply decided to remove their music from the platform. This would have been consistent with the tradition of the protest singer, from which they both come. The problem was that they appeared to make this an ultimatum, asking Spotify to choose between them and the podcaster.
As a commercial decision this was no contest. But in terms of the free circulation of ideas in a free society, it is more problematic. Wherever possible, we should allow the most uncomfortable debates to take place in the largest possible arena. And Rogan’s arena is certainly large.
The intervention of Young and Mitchell was significant precisely because it sparked debate about the limits of free speech. They were not alone in objecting to the views of Dr Robert Malone, a guest who questioned the effectiveness of mask-wearing and likened the mass-vaccination programme to Nazi Germany. Some 270 scientists also wrote to Spotify to demand they address misinformation on Rogan’s show.
Following the row, Spotify is reported to have removed more than 110 episodes of Rogan’s show where they were seen to spread misinformation or guests used racist slurs. This though is not censorship. Removing content is an editorial decision. Young and Mitchell have succeeded where others have failed in forcing a major media platform to recognise its responsibilities as a publisher.
The pandemic has put a huge strain on our instinct for free speech. But the reality is that the debate between sceptics and adherents to government policy has been, for the most part, open and vibrant. The discussion around the Joe Rogan show has resulted in the podcaster committing himself to providing more balance in future and Spotify acknowledging its role in modifying content.
If nothing else, this episode has at least disabused us of the idea that Rogan is an outsider, let alone a dissident. For better or worse he now is the mainstream media.
18 Feb 22 | Statements, United States
The undersigned organisations express their serious concern at the legal proceedings, also known as SLAPPs, that have been brought against investigative journalist Scott Stedman, his US media company Forensic News, and three of his colleagues.
Between June 2019 and June 2020, Forensic News published six articles and a podcast about the business affairs of British-Israeli security consultant and businessman Walter Soriano, after he was summoned by the United States’ Senate Intelligence Committee. The Committee was reportedly interested in Soriano’s connections to several people of interest, including the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who had been a former business associate of Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
The Forensic News team was sued by Soriano in July 2020, one month after they published their last article about him. Although the defendants are all based in the United States and Forensic News is incorporated in the state of California, the lawsuit has been brought in London.
A total of five claims were made in relation to data protection, libel, misuse of private information, harassment, and malicious falsehoods. Two of the claims, harassment and malicious falsehoods, have since been dismissed.
“We believe that the lawsuit that has been brought against Forensic News is a SLAPP,” the undersigned organisations said. SLAPPs abuse the law in order to silence critical coverage on matters of public interest. Index on Censorship has filed a media freedom alert to the Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists.
“The case has many of the hallmarks of a SLAPP, including that Soriano is not only suing the news organisation, but also the four individual reporters. He also has lawsuits pending against investigative journalists in France and Israel, as well as against Twitter in Ireland,” the organisations said.
Due to the extremely expensive nature of mounting a legal defence in England and Wales, Forensic News is having to raise funds through an online crowdfunding campaign. The case is expected to go to trial before the end of 2022.
SIGNED:
Index on Censorship
Blueprint for Free Speech
The Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland (CFoIS)
Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
English PEN
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
IFEX
International Press Institute (IPI)
Justice for Journalists Foundation
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Spotlight on Corruption
17 Feb 22 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
Tyrants love a distraction. There are only so many issues, so many countries, so many crises that our global institutions can focus on at any given time. So the worst but most effective of authoritarian regimes seek to implement their most repressive acts when the world is looking elsewhere. Of all those that seek to use misdirection and obfuscation I think it’s fair to suggest that Vladimir Putin is one of the masters.
In recent weeks we’ve seen a terrifying but all consuming escalation in Russian threats against Ukraine. 60% of their land army is now deployed on the borders of Ukraine and Belarus – but we are meant to believe that they have no plans to invade, or rather continue their war against Ukraine that began in 2014 when they invaded Crimea.
The world has rightly been focused on troop movements on the Ukrainian border. Every leader has spoken publicly of events in Eastern Europe. NATO leaders have talked daily, and nearly every democratic power has met with or spoken directly to President Putin. Their conversations have not touched on human rights violations within Russia, Putin’s support for a ruthless dictatorship in Belarus or even their weaponising of cyber activism to undermine democracies.
In the phoney propaganda war Putin is winning. On his own terms. And the world is letting him. He has determined the agenda at hand, world leaders are flocking to meet him in order to stop World War Three (rightly) and the rest of his indiscretions and human rights violations are, for now at least, off the table.
Which brings me to the subject of this blog. Alexei Navalny. On Tuesday, as our world leaders sought to prevent a new war, Putin’s biggest critic was put on trial, again.
The popular Russian opposition leader is accused of embezzling donations to his FBK anti-corruption organisation, which spearheaded investigations into Russian officials and sparked large protests against Putin. Navalny has denied the charges and says they’re politically motivated.
Putin is so fearful of dissent that he has held the trial not in Moscow, in a court, but rather in the prison that Navalny is already detained in. Navalny is being tried three to four hours from Moscow, a journey which is less than straightforward. If lawyers and observers do manage to get to the IK-2 penal colony then no phones or recording equipment may be taken inside, no evidence of impropriety obtained.
Hi wife Yulia wrote on Instagram on the eve of the trial: “[The authorities] want to hide him from all people, from his supporters, from journalists. It is so pathetic that they are afraid to hold the trial in Moscow.”
If Navalny is found guilty, again, then he will face a further 15 years in prison. Every day his family fear for his safety, not unreasonably after the attempted assassination attempt with Novichock in 2020.
Navalny’s case embodies Putin’s dismissal of the rule of law and his callous disregard for basic human rights. Index will continue to stand with Navalny and will keep telling his story to make sure that Putin knows the world is still watching.
16 Feb 22 | News and features
“I am personally so moved by the courage of the people of Belarus who won’t be silenced, even knowing the danger they are putting themselves in,” Belarusian journalist and human rights defender Andrei Aliaksandrau wrote in a letter in December 2013. He was working in London at the time as Index on Censorship’s Belarus Officer, and his letter was aimed at raising awareness of Index’s work ahead of a fundraising appeal.
Today our friend and former colleague, Andrei, will spend his 400th day behind bars in Belarus. On returning to Belarus from London in the mid-2010s, Andrei was well aware of the risks of continuing his work in defence of human rights, but he refused to be intimidated or to be silenced.
“All across the world secrets are the lifeblood of dictatorships and oppressive regimes, which is why the journalists, human rights activists and campaigners Index works with live under the fear of attack from the police services,” he wrote in the letter.
Detained and imprisoned in January 2021, Andrei is now facing charges of “treason to the state”, which stem from allegations that he paid the fines of journalists and protesters detained during the pro-democracy protests that were triggered by the highly disputed 2020 presidential election. Belarusian law enforcement agencies erroneously equate this with financing unlawful protests. If convicted, he will face up to 15 years in prison.
“If it got that bad for me, would I still have the courage to keep speaking out[?],” Andrei wondered in his letter, referring to Andrei Sannikov, the Belarusian presidential candidate, who was beaten, arrested and left in an isolation cell with a razor blade and a piece of cord, in the hope he would kill himself.
Now Andrei himself is subject to the regime’s brutality. He and his partner, Iryna Zlobina, are two of more than 1,062 political prisoners in Belarus.
Sign the petition to help us call for Andrei and Iryna’s immediate and unconditional release. You can also read a more recent letter from Andrei, which he sent to his friend Tania from behind bars.
10 Feb 22 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
Last weekend I made an error. I posted a photo on my personal social media account of some political campaigning I’d done. As a former MP, it would have surprised no one. It was the very essence of unremarkable. Yet the response this picture of six smiling friends generated was extraordinary, both in its ferocity and deeply hateful nature.
I’m not going to use the privilege that my role gives me to list the attacks in any detail. Index is not my personal hobby horse; we aren’t party political, and work with stakeholders across the world who share our commitment to the liberal value of free expression, regardless of their personal politics. This of course means that people have the absolute right to express themselves as they see fit – including their views about me.
But here’s the rub. Because just as someone has the right to say something, or more often than not type something, doesn’t mean that the target of their comments is obliged to hear it – or read it. People have the right to speak; what they do not have is the right to be heard by the target of their ire.So when people exercise their right to criticise those in the public eye, it’s important for all those involved in the conversation to understand that when a line is crossed and abuse becomes threats, laws are being broken. And this has consequences.
The furore my innocuous tweet generated was a timely reminder of quite how horrible online discourse can become, and quite how quickly. A pile-on sees “banter” morph seamlessly into abuse, from which seep the inevitable threats. It is a pattern as old as social media itself, and is all the more common for women in the public eye, especially those who come from a minority community.
Rarely a week goes by when I am not tempted to shut all my accounts down, turn off my access and with it, mute the hate. But I am then reminded of the good that can come from social media – knowing that your friends and family are safe in the midst of a crisis, being able to reach out to former friends and colleagues, and of course being able to seek help when you need it. For Index, it is also an invaluable tool in not only shining a light on the actions of repressive regimes, but of amplifying the stories of dissidents with stories that demand to be heard. it is also a literal lifeline when communicating with correspondents and sources when no other platform is available.
All of which makes moves by governments in the UK and further afield to regulate our online space a minefield unlike any other. The British government is currently legislating to make our online world “safer”. The Canadians and Australians are doing the same, as is the European Union.
My overriding concern is that we are witnessing governments trying to legislate for cultural change. And this is a recipe for failure before any law makes it onto the statute books.
Trying to limit debate and sanitise our online lives through regulation simply masks the tensions, divisions and prejudices that exist in our societies rather than tackling the underlying causes. This is not a counsel of despair, nor a position that says regulation shouldn’t exist. Of course more can be done to make us all safer online, but we need to find the right balance in order to protect ourselves and those that we care about. We need to learn how to use the platforms properly, harnessing the indisputable good of social media while limiting our exposure to the bad. We also need to decide as citizens how we want to manage this space and – perhaps most crucially of all – who should do it. If we decide collectively that our online conversation needs more regulation than a visit to the pub (hint– it shouldn’t), then I for one would like our democratically elected politicians to determine where those lines are drawn, not an algorithm written by a Tech giant or an anonymous regulator.
Which brings me back to the weekend. My mistake wasn’t campaigning, or even tweeting about it, but rather not using the tools available to me to manage my social media and how I wanted to use it. I failed to protect myself. In an ideal world I shouldn’t have to – but my reality online is far from ideal, so going forward I will be limiting how I use social media (again) and how I engage with people. The reality is this doesn’t limit anyone else’s free expression, only my own. Which is my choice.
I run one of the oldest free expression organisations in the UK. We are 50 years old next month. I spend my professional life campaigning to make sure that the persecuted are heard – that people are not silenced for expressing themselves, protecting people’s right to have an opinion regardless of whether it is popular or not. I won’t spend my time defending the indefensible – the bullies, the racists, the misogynists, and the trolls. They have a right to speak but I have the right to ignore them, which is what they deserve.
10 Feb 22 | China, News and features, Press Releases
The report, compiled over months of detailed research and gathering of personal testimony, shows how the “long arm” of the Chinese Communist Party is silencing ethnic Uyghurs.
Countless Uyghurs who have managed to escape China in search of freedom and security have instead found themselves threatened and silenced by threats to friends and family still living in China.
From being persecuted in China, they find themselves hounded in Europe. Meanwhile, Uyghurs in Xinjiang are increasingly being pressured to inform on friends and relatives living abroad.
As the Uyghur Tribunal recently concluded, genocide, human rights abuses and torture are taking place against the Uyghur population of China. This intelligence gathering drive by the CCP is part of a concerted effort to compile a “global register” of information to assist the authorities in China to clamp down further on them.
Jessica Ní Mhainín, policy and campaigns manager at Index on Censorship, said: “Today’s report shows the shocking reach of the Chinese government’s ‘long arm’, and also shines a light on the depths to which they will stoop in their concerted campaign against the Uyghur people.
“It has been widely accepted that there is a genocide taking place against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. What today’s report from Index on Censorship demonstrates is that the CCP is now taking this campaign into countries around the world.
“Most of the approximately 12,500 Uyghurs that reside in the UK and EU still have friends or family members in Xinjiang. Speaking out or reporting CCP-backed threats could put their loved ones at an increased risk of internment, torture or worse.”
Download the report here.
09 Feb 22 | News and features
Since returning home to the Democratic Republic of Congo in the winter of 2020, after spending several years travelling throughout Africa, I found the winds of change blowing over the country. Expectations were high that these winds would bring new freedoms, including freedom of expression and the media, which had been overlooked under the old administration.
But it was not to be. I quickly found that yesterday’s victims – the current ruling party leaders – had turned into the new oppressors. Journalists and thought leaders, even musicians, were arrested, threatened, taken to court and jailed. Others would self-censor to avoid trouble. They did not want to get in trouble with the authorities. The new leader of the DRC, Felix Tshisekedi, failed in his promise to protect the media, just like previous leaders had.
DRC leader Felix Tshisekedi, who has presided over a crackdown on the press. Credit: www.kremlin.ru/Wikimedia
Many would decry the way I reported, saying that I was putting myself in danger. But I was trained in South Africa, where the media is more free. I didn’t want to self-censor. So when Index on Censorship asked me to write about Tshisekedi’s failed promises to put the media first, I accepted.
I did not realise then quite how much it would put me in danger. A few weeks after filing, I was told that those in power were angered by my article and that spies were being sent to look for me. I also heard allegations that a list of anti-regime journalists had been issued by ruling party supporters – each person to be hunted down. Apparently, my name was on that list.
The weeks that followed were a sort of hell. I slept uneasily, fearing for my life. My wife and I were separated – pending a divorce – and on a level that felt like a blessing. At least I knew she and our children would be safe, away from me. If a hitman came to finish me off, I would die alone, and spare the lives of our kids.
I wanted to leave the capital city, my birthplace, but I did not know where to go. At the time I was staying in a hotel due to the breakup of my marriage. I quickly packed a suitcase with my clothes. While I wasn’t sure exactly when or if someone would come for me, I couldn’t take the risk. I left in haste. I didn’t even have time to pick up my trousers and shirt that were being repaired at a makeshift dressmaker.
The money I had was very little. It would be hard to purchase a ticket to West Africa, a region that I love and that I believe is one of the world’s underreported zones. With the money that I did have, I travelled to the troubled east of the country. It wasn’t a decision made lightly. Rather from there it would be relatively easy to cross the border into other, safer countries.
In the DRC’s east many journalists have been killed and others threatened in recent years. The media work under duress. They face threats and attacks from security forces and intelligence agencies, and from armed groups. For example, in October 2020 a radio journalist went into hiding after army generals threatened to kill her.
While there I was told that I had to be very careful; two gunmen in army uniforms had come looking for a journalist near where I was staying. Once again, I started to make plans to leave, and this time round to leave the DRC for good. Again, I had very little money. Index fortunately gave me an advance on my next article, which really helped. It was time to go. Before it is too late.
I went first by ship, the whole night, 100.4 km to the south, then by car crisscrossing mountains, hills and valleys, another 100 km further south, all amid the presence of dozens of armed groups.
I finally made it safely out of the “danger zone”. I was out of reach, both from the government, its army, and militia.
But new challenges quickly emerged. On the way to where I was supposed to go to be able to seek refuge I was robbed. My laptop was taken and all my money. Those who robbed us said that if we ever tried to report the incident to the authorities they would hunt us down. Again, silenced and gagged.
Back to square one. Those days were a struggle. Minimal food and money, no laptop, no phone, no permanent place to stay. I felt hopeless and helpless in a strange country.
I worried about where I would sleep and eat and also about the stories I would struggle to report.
These beautiful and exciting lands have been transformed into a hostile zone run by political leaders who hate the media. I long for West Africa – “my second home”. I want to go there and be at peace and rest. Not to retire though, no, because I firmly believe that I was born to write, expose, criticise and hold the powerful to account.
This account was given to Index in January. Since then the writer has managed to leave the DRC and is reporting for Index in the upcoming 50th anniversary special issue.
08 Feb 22 | News and features
Index on Censorship is on the hunt for a passionate, driven journalist to join our editorial team in the role of assistant editor.
For 50 years, Index on Censorship’s stories, dispatches, interviews and investigations have informed the world of abuses to freedom of expression. They have sparked debate, set agendas and won awards.
Our vision, with quality journalism at the heart, is to hold power to account and to be a voice for the persecuted. We wouldn’t be where we are today without the determination and creative spirit of those who have worked for us in the past and work with us today. To that end we are looking for someone to join our small, but enthusiastic team.
The assistant editor will work alongside the editor, as well as the other members of the team and our large network of contributors, to generate journalistic content across multi platforms. The ideal candidate will have several years’ experience in a writing and/or editing role. They will have an interest in human rights and a thirst for unusual and under-reported stories from across the globe.
Key responsibilities:
– Support the editor-in-chief with commissioning plans
– Write for both the magazine and for the website
– Assist with proofing and editing as required
– Be a spokesperson for the organisation where appropriate
– Develop analysis for in depth thought pieces
– Management of our Annual Freedom of Expression Award Winners post ceremony (ensuring their stories are told)
Additional aims of the role:
– To increase Index’s journalistic impact
– To build on Index’s reputation for thought-provoking content
Key skills:
– Keen instinct for a good story and how to tell it
– An interest in and understanding of global events and their ramifications on free expression and human rights
– Demonstrates self-motivation and initiative
– Able to work well under pressure and to tight deadlines
– Proven track record of editing and/or writing in English
– A second language or experience of living abroad would be beneficial, but is not essential
Please note this role is part-time for 2.5 days per week. It is remote working, although travel to London will be expected on a regular basis.
Benefits:
– 25 days holiday per annum FTE
– pension
Salary:
£30K Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
Application:
Please apply with a CV and cover letter to [email protected]
Closing date:
2nd March
Interviews will be held w/c 14th March
04 Feb 22 | China, Hong Kong, Opinion, Ruth's blog, Tibet, Uncategorized
]Today the Beijing Winter Olympics begins, and I am angry.
While the world enjoys extraordinary sport and the emotional rollercoaster of a global competition – checking their countries medal table on a daily, if not hourly, basis we know, beyond doubt, that the CCP government of China is persecuting its citizens. It is using every page in the authoritarian leader’s playbook to silence opposition, whether that be in Hong Kong, the Chinese mainland or even beyond its borders, as it tries to prevent those who seek to live freely and true to themselves and their beliefs. And in Xinjiang province their documented acts of genocide against the Uyghur people are just devastating.
I cannot and will not in all good conscience turn the other way and pretend that Beijing is an acceptable place to host the Winter Olympics. To give credibility to a regime that is murdering its citizens because of their faith and detaining others because they engage in democratic protest or dare to document events as journalists.
This is not a regime that warrants global celebration – it deserves unified condemnation.
But…
The participants in the Winter Olympics didn’t get to choose where they were being held. They have trained for the past four years to participate in the Olympics – not the CCP Olympics. It is for this reason that I am a little torn.
Index doesn’t support boycotts – we fight for freedom of expression around the world. We may not agree with the views of the those who are expressing themselves and we may not agree with their creative output but we campaign every day for people to have the right to express themselves freely and without fear or favour. And athletes taking part have done nothing to deserve our censure.
But Index was also established to be a voice for those that were being persecuted by repressive and totalitarian regimes. To campaign against these regimes. To make the case, daily, for freedom of expression as a liberal democratic value.
So, it is in this tradition that Index will be using the days ahead as the Beijing Olympics continues to highlight the CCP’s tactics against both its population and outside its borders. Next week we launch our new Banned by Beijing report – on how the CCP Government is seeking to use every resource at its disposal to silence the Uyghur community that have managed to escape China to the seeming safety of Europe; details of our launch event can be found here.
Every day of the Games, we will also be sharing a story from our archive on social media highlighting how the CCP have been persecuting their people. So, watch the Olympics – enjoy your favourite sport, cheer on your side – but don’t forget what the CCP are doing to their own people – and share the stories of the persecuted every day.
04 Feb 22 | News and features, United Kingdom, Volume 50.04 Winter 2021, Volume 50.04 Winter 2021 Extras
In traditional British English, the word “corruption” is an irregular noun. This grammatical oddity conjugates thus: I am helping my friends, you are involved in unethical practices, he is engaging in misconduct in public life, a foreigner is guilty of corruption.
This is, in my experience, unique. In other countries I have written about, politicians regularly accuse opponents of corruption, while of course denying it themselves. In Britain, however, we resort to euphemisms: cronyism, paid lobbying, cash-for-questions, sleaze. I do not know anywhere else that seems so determined to insist that corruption is alien to its traditions that it has invented a parallel vocabulary to describe how people abuse their powers.
This is a problem because, by linguistically cutting itself off from the global mainstream, Britain has also stopped itself from learning how other countries have tackled corruption. If British politicians are not corrupt, what relevance does the prosecution of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy have; or the congressional investigation into Donald Trump; or the journalistic investigations into Vladimir Putin?
Last autumn, however, thanks to an explosion of allegations, something appears to have changed. In the last six months alone we’ve heard about ministers creating a special “VIP lane” to allow their contacts to bid for Covid-19-related contracts without the paperwork imposed on ordinary bidders; about MPs lobbying ministers on behalf of private clients; about party donors receiving peerages in exchange for large donations; about ministers exploiting a loophole in regulations to avoid having to tell the public who’s been paying for their holidays; about foreign governments paying for MPs’ groups to get around lobbying restrictions.
Opposition parties are now freely using the c-word to describe ministers’ behaviour. In the media, even a legal commentator as sober as David Allen Green of the Financial Times has argued that corruption is the best term to describe the assault on the integrity of British institutions staged by Boris Johnson’s government.
It’s too early to say whether this will be a short-term political phenomenon, or whether it’s the start of a realisation that corruption isn’t some foreign disease like rabies kept out of Britain by the English Channel. But this awareness is certainly spreading into other spheres. One law enforcement source recently told me that investigators were starting to “turn over the corruption rock to see what’s underneath”. These are baby steps, but babies grow bigger, and perhaps this will too.
It’s hard to overstate how important it could be if Brits realised they’re not immune to corruption and began to treat it as the threat to civilisation that it is. London has, for decades, been the most popular adopted home for the world’s crooks and thieves and, thanks to Britain’s traditional reluctance to label its own as corrupt, they have been able to enjoy the hospitality of the city unchallenged. By gifting small fractions of their stolen wealth to universities, galleries, charities and – sometimes – even politicians, they have become “philanthropists”, “entrepreneurs” or “socialites”. Journalists are then unable to write the truth about them, because it’s defamatory to be rude about a philanthropist. And that means financial institutions have been happy to move their money around, because – well – what reason would they have not to?
Britain has acted as a huge loophole through which corrupt money has poured into the global economy; blocking that hole is the biggest service Brits could do for the world. I am hopeful that the transformation of “corruption” into a word that can describe the behaviour of British politicians as well as foreigners, and the recognition that this blight affects us as much as anyone, is a step towards that.
03 Feb 22 | China, Hong Kong, News and features
Athlete protest has been almost as common a feature of the Olympic Games as elite sporting achievement since its modern inception at the turn of the 20th century.
At the 1906 Games, Irish triple jumper Peter O’Connor protested his registration as a British athlete – Ireland did not have a national Olympic committee at the time – by scaling the flagpole during the award ceremony and waving an Irish flag.
The official recognition of the Games as a platform for protest happened in 1955 when then president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Avery Brundage wrote guidelines into the Olympic bylaws. These stated that Olympic host cities had to ensure “no political demonstrations will be held in the stadium or other sport grounds, or in the Olympic Village, during the Games, and that it is not the intention to use the Games for any other purpose than for the advancement of the Olympic Movement”.
This did not stop perhaps the best known of all Olympic protests – the Black Power demonstrations at the 1968 Mexico Olympics when American 200-metre athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their gloved hands in salute during the US national anthem.
Further changes to athletes’ rights to express themselves were codified in a 1975 update to the Olympic Charter in rule 55, which simply said, “Every kind of demonstration or propaganda, whether political, religious or racial, in the Olympic areas is forbidden”.
The IOC has since moved away from this total ban and now declares itself to be “fully supportive of freedom of expression”.
And yet the most recent version of the rule on athlete expression, now known as Rule 50, state that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. It does though allow for expressing views outside Olympic sites and venues or before and after the Games. Athletes are also permitted to express their views in press conferences, during interviews and through their own social media channels.
In 2020 IOC member Dick Pound wrote: “Everyone has the right to political opinion and the freedom to express such opinions. The IOC fully agrees with that principle and has made it absolutely clear that athletes remain free to express their opinions in press conferences, in media interviews and on social media. But, in a free society, rights may come with certain limitations. Rule 50 restricts the occasions and places for the exercise of such rights. It does not impinge on the rights themselves.”
Athletes recognised just how much of a platform the games give them to express themselves, particularly with the global, 24-hour coverage afforded to it in modern times. As a result, they’ve always pushed back against bans. For example, at the delayed 2020 Tokyo Olympics, many athletes and teams took the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement within Olympic venues.
So what can we expect from Beijing?
When China last hosted the Olympics in Beijing in 2008, it was a dramatically different country. One continuity was the human rights situation and there were protests organised by activists about human rights abuses in Tibet during those Games. Athletes however kept quiet.
A huge amount has changed in the 14 years since the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Athletes may feel very tempted to speak out. The wider world has been made aware of the Uyghur genocide, involving sterilisation, forced education in detention centres, the disappearance of activists and threats around the world against those who do speak out on the atrocities.
China has also cracked down in Hong Kong, effectively ending the one country, two systems policy. It has introduced the national security law, closed down independent media outlets and jailed political opponents.
Meanwhile, its other abuses – such as those in Tibet – have not gone away. Nor has concern over Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai, who disappeared late last year after she accused a top official of sexual misconduct.
At the Australian Open in January, athletes did use their platform to speak out about Peng Shuai. It would stand to reason the same would happen in Beijing. And yet China is not Australia.
While the rules governing freedom of expression at the Games have been loosened in the wake of athlete protests, Chinese officials have done little to ease concerns over athletes expressing themselves in Beijing. In mid-January, the deputy director of the Beijing organising committee Yang Shu said that “Any expression that is in line with the Olympic spirit I’m sure will be protected.” She then added, “Any behaviour or speech that is against the Olympic spirit, especially against the Chinese laws and regulations, are also subject to certain punishment.”
Basically, speak out and risk prison. It’s a high price to pay.
Then there’s the question of technology. Unlike 2008 when social media was in its infancy, China will be very worried about the potential for protest to reach a much wider audience than before. Anyone making comments on social media from inside the country will be required to communicate with the world through Chinese telecoms companies.
In December, VOA News reported that China has committed to switch off its Great Firewall for athletes and accredited media in the Olympic Village, competition and noncompetition venues, and contracted media hotels.
Just because the Firewall is being relaxed does not mean what athletes say over social media is not being monitored.
One particular concern for athletes at the Games is the requirement to download an app called MY2022 before arriving in China. The app is ostensibly there to maintain a closed loop system relating to Covid measures. However, researchers at Canada’s Citizen Lab says the app is not secure, leading a number of national Olympic committees, including the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, to advise their athletes to leave their personal devices at home.
In a statement shared with athletes, Canada’s national committee wrote, “We’ve reminded all Team Canada members that the Olympic Games present a unique opportunity for cybercrime and recommended that they be extra diligent at Games, including considering leaving personal devices at home, limiting personal information stored on devices brought to the Games, and to practice good cyber-hygiene at all times.”
The app also has a number of other features beyond health, such as AI-powered translation and weather, and real-time messaging and audio. Citizen Lab says it also includes features that allow users to report “politically sensitive” content while the Android version includes a censorship keyword list.
The organisation said, “We discovered a file named illegalwords.txt which contains a list of 2,442 keywords generally considered politically sensitive in China. However, despite its inclusion in the app, we were unable to find any functionality where these keywords were used to perform censorship. It is unclear whether this keyword list is entirely inactive, and, if so, whether the list is inactive intentionally.”
The list includes terms such as Xi Jinping, Tiananmen riot, Dalai Lama, Xinjiang and forced demolition. Citizen Lab says that many of the terms are in Uyghur or Tibetan scripts, something that is “not common” in other censored apps such as WeChat and YY.
It is highly likely that one or more principled athletes will use the Beijing Games to make a stand over Xinjiang, Tibet or Hong Kong. The question is whether, with the world watching, China will dare to take them to task.
CCP censorship extends well beyond the Olympic Games, including the targeting of Chinese minorities overseas. Index has investigated the extent to which the Chinese government is using its technological and economic leverage, combined with cultural and diplomatic networks, to intimidate, silence, and discredit Uyghurs in Europe. The report – China’s Long Arm: How Uyghurs are being Silenced in Europe – will be published on 10 February 2022.
Get a free ticket to the launch event here, titled Banned By Beijing: How can Europe stand up for Uyghurs? After the event, check out our website’s Banned By Beijing page to read the report.”
02 Feb 22 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Russia, Ukraine
A journalist covering a demonstration in Kyiv, Ukraine, August 2020. Credit: Oleksandr Polonskyi/Shutterstock
While media crews from around the world are arriving in Ukraine to cover the situation amid a build-up of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border, local journalists are trying to overcome the many obstacles that stand in the way of their media freedom. The working environment is challenging: from disinformation campaigns and orchestrated propaganda to limited resources in newsrooms, attacks on journalists and the often inadequate response of law enforcement.
In Ukraine, the armed conflict has been going on for almost eight years, ever since Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula and put armed forces in eastern Ukraine. In the wake of this, the Ukraine government has trod a difficult path as they have tried to balance media freedom and plurality against the risks that could be posed from an unregulated media landscape. They have not always made the right decisions. For example, one year ago, President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed sanctions that resulted in three TV channels associated with a pro-Russian politician – ZIK, NewsOne and 112 Ukraine – being taken off air. While some Ukrainian media experts supported the move, others saw it as repressive and criticised the authorities because they bypassed legal procedures and did not provide enough information to justify emergency restrictive measures.
At the same time Ukraine does face a real problem when it comes to misinformation. The ecosystem of online platforms and various social media in Ukraine that are being used by both state, influential non-state and political players is extensive. According to a report from Freedom House, paid commentators and trolls have proliferated Ukraine’s online public space. In many cases, these online platforms are anonymous and are spreading and amplifying messages that benefit the Russian government and seek to destabilise the Ukrainian political landscape. Many of these accounts have tens of thousands of subscribers and are being used by interested parties from inside or outside the country. They spread anything from malicious disinformation to banal clickbait to attract news audiences and they also attack journalists. According to the Institute of Mass Information survey, the majority of Ukrainian journalists have experienced some form of cyberbullying.
Independent journalists suffer from the damage related to misinformation, and their day-to-day duties are not easy either. Media workers in Ukraine are often defenseless against attacks and police responses to them can be inadequate. About 100 Ukrainian media workers were physically assaulted in 2021, revealed Ukraine’s National Union of Journalists (NUJU). This is hardly an improvement on the last year, when 101 journalists were physically assaulted.
Despite the tightening of legislation regarding accountability for attacks on journalists, the efficiency of the law enforcement system remains low, so the perpetrators often go unpunished. Several murders of famous journalists have not yet led to the punishment of those responsible. In 2019, Vadim Komarov, a journalist and blogger from Cherkasy, was violently attacked by an unknown person in a city center. Komarov was known for his exposes of corruption. He died in hospital after several months in a coma. Police still haven‘t found the perpetrator and the investigation remains open.
Another frightening example of the violence that Ukrainian journalists encounter in their work is the murder of Pavel Sheremet in 2016. Sheremet, who was a harsh critic of Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian authorities, died in a car explosion in downtown Kyiv. Three years later, after a new president came to power, the police detained five suspects. The trial is ongoing and as yet no one has been sentenced.
Sometimes difficulties arise from where they were not expected. For example, the NUJU says that rising prices for natural gas and fuel have caused many regional newsrooms to be unable to heat their editorial offices.
It’s hardly a surprise that about 48% of journalists reported self-censoring in the Ukrainian media, according to a 2019 study by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation. Topics related to patriotism, separatism, terrorism and Russia were the ones most avoided. And almost 65% believe that the war has increased self-censorship. Then there are those who literally get told what to say. For example, former employees of the state TV channel DOM have spoken about censorship by the Office of the President of Ukraine, which has demanded positive news about the president and his initiatives.
Given all of these attacks, how exactly can Ukraine’s journalists hold power to account?
And yet, thanks to the efforts of the journalistic community there is progress, the head of the NUJU Sergiy Tomilenko believes. Representatives of media and journalistic organisations have consistently raised concerns about the safety of journalists publicly and in face-to-face meetings with government officials for years. According to Tomilenko, the police have begun to investigate faster than before, and now see attacks against journalists as what they are – threats to the very nature of their work.
Media freedom and pluralism is crucial in general and no more so now. We need to see more positive change and fast.
