16 Sep 21 | Burma, Events, Iraq
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”117512″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]
Marking Banned Books Week 2021, Index on Censorship and the British Library present a conversation with poets at the frontlines of protest movements fighting for the right to speak freely and without fear of persecution.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Poetry is frequently used as a tool in protest movements to inspire, unite, and mobilise support. From Black Lives Matter and women’s liberation to protest movements in Myanmar and Afghanistan, poetry holds the power to gather crowds during a rally, or grab attention online. Poets can offer support and guidance in the most challenging, tragic or dangerous situations. Join Myanmarese-British poet ko ko thett and poet and scholar Dr Choman Hardi for a live poetry reading and conversation about the power of poetry in protest movements. The event will be chaired by Index on Censorship deputy chair Kate Maltby.
Marking Banned Books Week 2021, which has the theme “Books Unite Us. Censorship Divides Us”, Index on Censorship and the British Library invite you to explore the role of poetry in protest. What role does poetry play in protest movements? And can poetry be a form of protest in its own right?
Kate Maltby is the Deputy Chair of the Index on Censorship Board of Trustees. She is a critic, columnist, and scholar. She is currently working towards the completion of a PhD which examines the intellectual life of Elizabeth I, through the prism of her accomplished translations of Latin poetry, her own poems and recently attributed letters, and her representation as a learned queen by writers such as Shakespeare, Spenser and Sidney.
ko ko thett started publishing poems in samizdat format at Yangon Institute of Technology in the early 1990s. After a brush with the authorities in the December 1996 protests, he left Burma, led an itinerant life in Asia, Europe and North America and moved back to Myanmar in 2017. He has published several collections of poems and translations in Burmese and English. His poems have been translated into a dozen languages and are widely anthologised. He now lives in Norwich, UK.
Dr Choman Hardi is an educator, poet, and scholar known for pioneering work on issues of gender and education in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and beyond. After 26 years of exile, she returned home in 2014 to teach English and initiate gender studies at the American University of Iraq, Sulaimani (AUIS), where she also served as English department chair in 2015-16. She is the author of critically acclaimed books in the fields of poetry, academia, and translation. Since 2010, poems from her first English collection, Life for Us (Bloodaxe, 2004) have been studied by secondary school students in the UK as part of their English curriculum. Her second collection, Considering the Women (Bloodaxe, 2015), was given a Recommendation by the Poetry Book Society and shortlisted for the Forward Prize for Best Collection. Her translation of Sherko Bekas’ Butterfly Valley (ARC, 2018) won a PEN Translates Award.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]When: Wednesday 29 September 2021, 18.30-19.30
Where: ONLINE
Tickets: Free, advance booking essential[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Sep 21 | Awards, Fellowship, Fellowship 2021, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/q3_g9rQvgyA”][vc_column_text]Arif Ahmed is a free speech activist and a fellow of Gonville & Caius College at the University of Cambridge.
In March 2020, Ahmed proposed alterations to the Statement of Free Speech at Cambridge. The proposed amendments were created to make the legislation “clearer and more liberal.” He aimed to protect university campuses as places of innovation and invention. That requires protecting the right to freely and safely challenge received wisdom.
The first amendment replaces the demand for “respect” for the opinions of others with “tolerance.” The second and third amendments preserve free speech of outside speakers and events. They also contain stringent requirements to cancel events and disinvite or censor speakers.
A vote was held for the proposed amendments and they were officially passed in December 2020.
Ahmed continues to be an outspoken advocate for free speech on university campuses.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Sep 21 | Awards, Fellowship, Fellowship 2021
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/2s9v3ko0Z_E”][vc_column_text]Samira Sabou is a Nigerien journalist, blogger and president of the Niger Bloggers for Active Citizenship Association (ABCA).
In June 2020, Sabou was arrested and charged with defamation under the 2019 cybercrime law in connection with a Facebook post highlighting corruption, specifically the possible overbilling by the defence ministry. She spent over a month in detention before eventually being discharged and released.
This year, through her work with ABCA, she is conducting training sessions on disseminating information on social media based on journalistic ethics. The aim of this training, she says, is to give bloggers the means to avoid jail time. The need for this training is a consequence of the cybercrime law, enacted in 2019, which severely restricts freedom of expression in the country.
Sabou is also active in promoting girls’ and women’s right to freedom of expression and has championed women’s leadership through her work. This year, through ABCA, she is also fighting against child marriage, which remains a serious and widespread issue in Niger.
On 27 May 2021, about 20 police officers arrived at her home and attempted to arrest Sabou without a warrant. She was interrogated, without the presence of her lawyer and released later the same day. On 9 September 2021, Samira Sabou appeared before the Tribunal de Grande Instance Hors Classe de Niamey facing charges of “defamation” and “diffusing information to disrupt public order” as defined by the cyber crime law of 2019 in reference to an article on her Facebook page. The article was published by the Global Initiative regarding the Office Central de Répression du Trafic Illicite des Stupéfiants (OCRTIS) alleged reselling of drugs it had seized from illegal trafficking. Samira Sabou was charged alongside journalist Moussa Aksar, who also shared the same article.
Although the government of Niger continues to exert pressure on Sabou, she remains an outspoken supporter of freedom of expression, and especially media freedom, in Niger. Her aim is to open her own news agency and recruit young people who want to be innovative in the field of information. [/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/n84ihJkw8R4″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Sep 21 | Awards, Egypt, Fellowship, Fellowship 2021
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/4vNPXbJEmyw”][vc_column_text]Abdelrahman “Moka” Tarek is a human rights defender from Egypt, who focuses on defending the right to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners.
Tarek has experienced frequent harassment from the Egyptian authorities as a result of his work in defence of freedom of expression. In 2012, he was accused of organising a peaceful demonstration without a permit and subsequently placed in detention for five months. He was detained for four years on the same charge between 2015 and 2018, during which he was subject to frequent torture and solitary confinement.
In September 2019, Tarek was arbitrarily detained and tortured by the Egyptian security forces. Since then he spent several extended periods of time in prison, during which he was subject to ill-treatment including the use of electric shocks. His family have not been allowed to visit him since March 2019 and he has only had limited access to his lawyer. Tarek’s mental and physical health has suffered as a result of the prolonged imprisonment and systematic mistreatment.
He has remained in prison since September 2020 and in December 2020, a new case was brought against him on terrorism-related charges. On the same day as the new case was brought, he began a hunger strike to protest the Prosecutor General’s decision. In January 2021, he was transferred to the prison hospital due to a deterioration in his health caused by a hunger strike lasting 53 days. He remains in prison.[/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/xBBFy9AWQ4E”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Sep 21 | Awards, Fellowship, Fellowship 2021, Kyrgyzstan
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/V9L7150bLe0″][vc_column_text]Tatyana Zelenskaya is an illustrator from Kyrgyzstan, working on freedom of expression and women’s rights projects.
Zelenskaya’s illustrations have been featured by Amnesty International, as well as smaller organisations. Numerous Kyrgyzstani news outlets have published Zelenskaya’s work, such as Kloop or Current Time. On 8 March 2020, she was arrested while participating in a peaceful march on International Women’s Day.
Zelenskaya has found inspiration for her work in the waves of anti-government protests that have recently erupted across Russia and Kyrgyzstan. As a graduate from Bishkek’s Academy of Art, Zelenskaya draws on her experience growing up in Kyrgyzstan to highlight and critique key social issues. She originally created artwork to draw attention to the issue of domestic violence, but she has expanded her focus to other societal issues plaguing the country. She has been subject to threats online as a result of her work.
In 2020, she created the artwork for a narrative video game called Swallows: Spring in Bishkek, which features a woman (aspiring to be an outspoken blogger), who helps her friend that was abducted and forced into an unwanted marriage. The game was first released in June 2020 and was downloaded more than 30,000 times in its first two weeks. Its purpose is to break the silence around the issue of bride-kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan, with the aim of preventing them altogether.[/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/CuOhE4LB5Kg”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Sep 21 | Awards, Egypt, Fellowship 2021, Kyrgyzstan, News and features, Niger, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_images_carousel images=”117457,117451,117452,117454,117456,117458,117459,117460,117461,117462,117468,117469,117470,117471,117472,117463″ img_size=”full” speed=”3500″ autoplay=”yes”][vc_column_text]The winners of Index on Censorship’s 2021 Freedom of Expression awards have been announced at a ceremony in London hosted by actor, writer and activist Tracy-Ann Oberman.
The Freedom of Expression Awards, which were first held in 2000, celebrate individuals or groups who have had a significant impact fighting censorship anywhere in the world. Winners join Index’s Awards Fellowship programme and receive dedicated training and support. This year’s awards are particularly significant, coming as the organisation celebrates its 50th birthday.
Winners were announced in three categories – art, campaigning and journalism – and a fourth Trustees Award was also presented.
- The 2021 Trustees Award was presented to Arif Ahmed.
Arif Ahmed is a free speech activist and fellow at Gonville & Caius College at the University of Cambridge. In March 2020, Ahmed proposed alterations to the Statement of Free Speech at Cambridge. The proposed amendments were created to make the legislation “clearer and more liberal.” He aimed to protect university campuses as places of innovation and invention. That requires protecting the right to freely and safely challenge received wisdom.
- The 2021 Freedom of Expression Award for Journalism was presented to Samira Sabou.
Samira Sabou is a Nigerien journalist, blogger and president of the Niger Bloggers for Active Citizenship Association (ABCA). In June 2020, Sabou was arrested and charged with defamation under the restrictive 2019 cybercrime law in connection with a comment on her Facebook post highlighting corruption. She spent over a month in detention. Through her work with ABCA, she conducts training sessions on disseminating information on social media based on journalistic ethics. The aim is to give bloggers the means to avoid jail time. Sabou is also active in promoting girls’ and women’s right to freedom of expression, and wants to open her own news agency recruiting young people who want to be innovative in the field of information.
- The 2021 Freedom of Expression Award for Art was presented to Tatyana Zelenskaya
Tatyana Zelenskaya is an illustrator from Kyrgyzstan, working on freedom of expression and women’s rights projects. Zelenskaya has found inspiration for her work in the waves of anti-government protests that have recently erupted across Russia and Kyrgyzstan. In 2020, she created the artwork for a narrative video game called Swallows: Spring in Bishkek, which features a woman who helps her friend that was abducted and forced into an unwanted marriage. The game was downloaded more than 70,000 times in its first month. Its purpose is to break the silence around the issue of bride-kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan, with the aim of preventing them altogether.
- The 2021 Freedom of Expression Award for Campaigning was presented to Abdelrahman Tarek
Abdelrahman “Moka” Tarek is a human rights defender from Egypt, who focuses on defending the right to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners. Tarek has experienced frequent harassment from Egyptian authorities as a result of his work. He has spent longer periods of time in prison and has experienced torture, solitary confinement, and sexual abuse. Authorities have severely restricted his ability to communicate with his lawyer and family. Tarek was arrested again in September 2020 and in December 2020, a new case was brought against him on terrorism-related charges. Tarek began a hunger strike in protest of the terrorism charges. In January 2021, he was transferred to the prison hospital due to a deterioration in his health caused by the hunger strike.
Index on Censorship chief executive Ruth Smeeth said: “As Index marks its 50th birthday it’s clear that the battle to guarantee free expression and free expression around the globe has never been more relevant. Inspired by the tremendous courage of our award winners, we will continue in our mission to defend free speech and free expression around the globe, give voice to the persecuted, and stand against repression wherever we find it”.
Trevor Philips, chair of the Index on Censorship board of trustees said: “Across the globe, the past year has demonstrated the power of free expression. For many the only defence is the word or image that tells the story of their repression; and for the oppressors the sound they fear most is diversity of thought and opinion. Index exists to ensure that in that battle, freedom wins – both abroad, and as this year’s Trustee award demonstrates here at home too.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Sep 21 | Afghanistan, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117433″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]More than 80 leading lights from the worlds of film and theatre have signed an open letter to The Times calling on the British government to give artists, writers and film-makers who remain in Afghanistan and face an uncertain future under the Taliban safe passage out of the country.
The letter, organised by Index on Censorship and Good Chance Theatre, reads as follows: “Over the past two decades, civil society has flourished in Afghanistan with new freedoms ushering in a golden age of art, music, film and writing. At the same time, political dissent and journalism have thrived in a region where free expression is not always respected. With the Taliban takeover of the country, this rich legacy is in imminent peril. We now have a duty to those artists, writers and film makers who will be silenced if we do not act immediately.
“We urge the British government to cooperate with the international community to create a humanitarian corridor for those seeking safe passage out of the country. We also call on those in positions of influence in the creative industries to help those who have escaped to continue their vital work and safeguard the culture of Afghanistan for future generations.“
Signatories
Majid Adin, artist; Riz Ahmed, actor; Jenny Agutter, actor; Alison Balsom, musician; Siddiq Barmak, director; Sanjeev Bhaskar, actor; Hugh Bonneville, actor; Martin Bright, journalist; Barbara Broccoli, producer; Josephine Burton, director; Jez Butterworth, writer; Robert Chandler, poet; Benedict Cumberbatch, actor; Stephen Daldry, director; Catherine Davidson, writer; Amy Davies Dolamore, producer; Ged Doherty, producer; Parwana Fayyaz, poet; Jane Featherstone, producer; Colin Firth, actor; Sonia Friedman, producer; Stephen Fry, actor; Mark Gatiss, actor; Leah Gayer, director; Claire Gilbert, producer; Paul Greengrass, director; Sir David Hare, writer; Zarlasht Halaimzai, writer; Dame Pippa Harris, producer; Afua Hirsch, writer; Nancy Hirst, director; Mike Hodges, director; Sir Nicholas Hytner, director; Sabrina Guinness, producer; Asif Kapadia, director; Mohammad Akbar Karkar, writer; Daniel King, producer; Keira Knightley, actor; Natalia Koliada, producer; David Lan, producer; Jennifer Langer, editor; Stewart Lee, writer; Kerry Michael, director; Krishnendu Majumdar, producer; Mohsen Makhmalbaf, director; Simon McBurney, director; Kate McGrath, director; Sir Ian McKellen, actor; Nada Menzalji, poet; Sir Sam Mendes, director; David Morrissey, actor; Joe Murphy, writer; Zoe Neirizi, poet; Caro Newling, producer; David Nicholls, writer; Amir Nizar Zuabi, director; Sophie Okonedo, actor; Nasrin Parvaz, writer; Pascale Petit, poet; Trevor Phillips, broadcaster; Clare Pollard, poet; Atiq Rahimi, writer; Shirin Razavian, poet; Ian Rickson, director; Clare Robertson, producer; Joe Robertson, writer; Sir Mark Rylance, actor; Philippe Sands QC, writer; Sarah Sands, editor; Tracey Seaward, producer; Shabibi Shah, writer; Rouhi Shafi, writer; Meera Syal, actor; George Szirtes, poet; Dame Kristin Scott Thomas, actor; Elif Shafak, writer; Thea Sharrock, director; Imelda Staunton, actor; Sir Tom Stoppard, writer; Abdul Sulamal, writer; Jawed Taiman, director; Dame Emma Thompson, actor; Orlando von Einsiedel; producer; Emma Watson, actor; Naomi Webb, producer; Samuel West, actor; Krysty Wilson-Cairns, writer; Haidar Yagane, writer; David Yates, director[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
10 Sep 21 | Afghanistan, Belarus, Hong Kong, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”106069″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Afghanistan. Hong Kong. Belarus.
Every day we’ve learned of a new atrocity. A new act of repression. A new effort to silence. A new law to intimidate.
The news has been awful. There are too many heartbreaking stories, too many images of people being tortured or arrested. Too many things to be angry about. But the reality is, thankfully, as painful as these stories are. They are in the news. They are being covered. And the world knows what is happening – daylight is truly trying to act as a disinfectant.
So as much as I worry about the horrendous restrictions to free expression that we see on the news and the people behind the headlines, every night I find myself fretting about who we’re not reporting on. Who is missing? What other regimes should we be focusing on. Whose story needs to be told. And most importantly how can we help.
In part, the annual Index Freedom of Expression awards is our answer to that question. Shining a light on activists, campaigners, artists, writers and journalists who are being targeted by repressive regimes. Making sure that some of the bravest most inspirational people in the fight for the right to global free expression have their stories told. This weekend we will be announcing our winners. But it’s not just about our winners, it’s about every nominee from Brazil to Nicaragua, from Egypt to Russia. Their stories, their fights deserve the world’s attention. And on Sunday evening we get to share their stories.
So over the weekend please watch our social media for the coverage. But before we get there I want to thank this year’s sponsors, Facebook, Edwardian Hotels, the Times and Sunday Times, Microsoft and Sage publications for enabling us to shine a spotlight on repressive regimes that don’t always dominate the news.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Sep 21 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117423″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
It is now more than 20 years since The Guardian and The Observer fought off attempts by the UK government to force them to hand over documents in the case of MI5 whistleblower David Shayler. At a judicial review, Judge Igor Judge concluded that demands to hand over journalistic material “would have a devastating and stifling effect on the proper investigation of the … story”.
The case reinforced the special status of journalistic sources in law – even in official secrecy cases – and established the principle that the police should not use journalists as informers.
As the Observer journalist responsible for writing the stories about Shayler’s disclosures, which included allegations of the involvement of UK intelligence in a plot to topple Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, I was particularly concerned to see the latest proposals for the reform of the Official Secrets Act.
These include enhanced search powers to give police access to just the sort of journalistic “special procedure material” (notes, emails and recorded interviews) we fought so hard to keep from the police two decades ago. The new OSA would thus enshrine in law the “devastating and stifling effect” on journalism that so concerned Judge.
Much has happened in the two decades since The Guardian and The Observer’s principled stand in the High Court. The growth of digital technology, the emergence of global Islamist terrorism and the increased national security threat to the UK from Russia and China have given the government good arguments for reform of legislation that was enacted when the world wide web was in its infancy.
But the new act is authoritarianism by stealth – a full-on assault on media freedom, carefully hidden behind an apparently reasonable desire for reform.
The National Union of Journalists has rightly sounded the alarm over plans to increase the maximum prison sentence for breaches of the OSA, which currently stands at two years. This will have significant chilling effect on journalists investigating government wrongdoing and their civil servant sources. More worrying still is the distinction now being made between espionage and so-called “unauthorised disclosure offences” (ie, leaks to journalists). As the consultation makes clear, this government believes “there are cases where an unauthorised disclosure may be as, or more, serious in terms of intent and/or damage”. The argument is that a large-scale digital disclosure could benefit a number of hostile actors, whereas espionage is usually carried out by a single state. The effect, in practice, is that a journalist in receipt of secret documents could face a longer sentence than a spy.
Where the government really lets its authoritarian slip show, however, is in a section of the consultation about the number of successful prosecutions under existing legislation. The truth is that the record here is woeful. The government argument is as follows: “This is primarily due to the sensitive nature of the evidence that would typically be required to be disclosed in order to bring prosecutions, but also because of the age of the legislation, which means many of the offences are not designed for the modern world. Prosecutions, as a result, are challenging and rare.”
This is patent nonsense. In most cases, Official Secrets prosecutions fail because they should not have been brought in the first place.
Since the Shayler case, I have been involved in two other high-profile Official Secrets cases, both of which eventually collapsed. The first concerned Katharine Gun, a GCHQ whistleblower, who leaked details to The Observer of a covert US/UK operation to fix the vote at the UN Security Council in advance of the Iraq War in 2003.
As the recent film of the case – Official Secrets – made clear, the problem was not disclosure of evidence of the crime (Gun confessed to the leak) but disclosure that would lead to ministerial embarrassment about the legality of the war.
The second case involved a Foreign Office official, Derek Pasquill, who leaked details of government policy on radical Islam in 2006. Here again, the trial did not collapse over evidential disclosure. In this case there were serious questions over whether any of his disclosures should have been covered by the OSA in the first place.
For those who care about free speech, civil liberties and democracy, the most serious concern should be the resistance of the government to a public interest defence in such cases. This is where the British state and the British people come into direct conflict.
In the cases of Gun and Pasquill, there is no doubt they acted in the public interest to reveal uncomfortable truths for the government. Their revelations served not just the public interest but the national interest. If the new legislation had been in place at the time, it is quite possible that Gun and Pasquill would both have been sent to prison.
Boris Johnson, the UK’s journalist prime minister, has said he doesn’t want to see a world where people are prosecuted for doing their public duty. I look forward to his column condemning his government’s own Official Secrets proposals, which will create just that nightmare world.
This piece first appeared in the British Journalism Review
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
01 Sep 21 | Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Dear Editor,
As proud members of the LGBTQ+ community, we know first-hand the vile abuse that regularly takes place online. The data is clear; 78% of us have faced anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime or hate speech online in the last 5 years.1 So we understand why the Government is looking for a solution, but the current version of the Online Safety Bill is not the answer – it will make things worse not better.
The new law introduces the “duty of care” principle and would give internet companies extensive powers to delete posts that may cause ‘harm.’ But because the law does not define what it means by ‘harm’ it could result in perfectly legal speech being removed from the web.2
As LGBTQ+ people we have seen what happens when vague rules are put in place to police speech. Marginalised voices are silenced. From historic examples of censors banning LGBTQ+ content to ‘protect’ the public, to modern day content moderation tools marking innocent LGBTQ+ content as explicit or harmful.
This isn’t scaremongering. In 2017, Tumblr’s content filtering system marked non-sexual LGBTQ+ content as explicit and blocked it, in 2020 TikTok censored depictions of homosexuality such as two men kissing or holding hands and it reduced the reach of LGBTQ+ posts in some countries, and within the last two months LinkedIn removed a coming out post from a 16-year-old following complaints.3
This Bill, as it stands, would provide a legal basis for this censorship. Moreover, its vague wording makes it easy for hate groups to put pressure on Silicon Valley tech companies to remove LGBTQ+ content and would set a worrying international standard.
Growing calls to end anonymity online also pose a danger. Anonymity allows LGBTQ+ people to share their experiences and sexuality while protecting their privacy and many non-binary and transgender people do not hold a form of acceptable ID and could be shut out of social media.4
The internet provides a crucial space for our community to share experiences and build relationships. 90% of LGBTQ+ young people say they can be themselves online and 96% say the internet has helped them understand more about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.5 This Bill puts the content of these spaces at potential risk.
Racism, homophobia, transphobia, and threats of violence are already illegal. But data shows that when they happen online it is ignored by authorities. After the system for flagging online hate crime was underused by the police, the Home Office stopped including these figures in their annual report all together, leaving us in the dark about the scale of the problem. The government’s Bill should focus on this illegal content rather than empowering the censorship of legal speech.
This is why we are calling for “the duty of care”, which in the current form of the Online Safety Bill could be used to censor perfectly legal free speech, to be reframed to focus on illegal content, for there to be specific, written, protections for legal LGBTQ+ content online, and for the LGBTQ+ community to be properly consulted throughout the process.
Stephen Fry, actor, broadcaster, comedian, director, and writer.
Munroe Bergdorf, model, activist, and writer.
Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner.
Carrie Lyell, Editor-in-Chief of DIVA Magazine.
James Ball, Global Editor of The Bureau Of Investigative Journalism.
Jo Corrall, Founder of This is a Vulva.
Clara Barker, material scientist and Chair of LGBT+ Advisory Group at Oxford University.
Marc Thompson, Director of The Love Tank and co-founder of PrEPster and BlackOut UK.
Sade Giliberti, TV presenter, actor, and media personality.
Fox Fisher, artist, author, filmmaker, and LGBTQIA+ rights advocate.
Cara English, Head of Public Engagement at Gendered Intelligence, Founder OpenLavs.
Paula Akpan, journalist, and founder of Black Queer Travel Guide.
Tom Rasmussen, writer, singer, and drag performer.
Jamie Wareham, LGBTQ journalist and host of the #QueerAF podcast.
Crystal Lubrikunt, international drag performer, host, and producer.
David Robson, Chair of London LGBT+ Forums Network
Shane ShayShay Konno, drag performer, curator and host of the ShayShay Show, and founder of The Bitten Peach.
UK Black Pride, Europe’s largest celebration for African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin America, and Caribbean-heritage LGBTQI+ people.
Footnotes
(3) See:
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Aug 21 | Afghanistan, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117302″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Yesterday I met with my local Afghani community. I left in tears. Their stories of heartbreak, of worry for their friends and families and their guilt at being safe in the UK while their loved ones hid in fear was heart-wrenching. Their distress at not being able to get money for food to their family.
These are the people behind the news. The real stories of the impact of the fall of Kabul and the rise of the Taliban. The devastating accounts of people whose lives have changed in a matter of days beyond all recognition. For every person successfully fleeing the Taliban, hundreds are left at their mercy. Women and girls who have been allowed an education and a career for the last two decades. Aid workers who bravely sought to work with global institutions to rebuild their country and a century of conflict. Journalists and activists who strove to make their country better by doing what civil society does – speak truth to power. All now vulnerable because they were brave and wanted to make their country a better place. All now targets of the Taliban.
We have all watched in despair at the news as desperate people have sought assistance to flee the Taliban, a repressive regime that recognises none of the liberal democratic values Index on Censorship was established to promote and defend. A regime that will quash artistic expression, that will destroy artwork, that will treat women and religious minorities as second-class citizens, that will allow no free media, that will seek to not just silence dissent but kill it.
Twenty years ago, in response to one of the worst terror attacks in my lifetime, NATO powers entered Afghanistan to tackle al-Qaida. We made promises to the people of Afghanistan and we offered them hope for a better life. Our actions over the last 18 months, compounded in the last two weeks, show that we have ignored those promises.
There are too many journalists left behind who have deleted their life’s work in the hope that they won’t be targeted. Too many women who were promised a better life, who trained to be doctors and judges and journalists, who will now be in hiding – told to stay at home for their own safety. Too many artists who will leave in fear, who won’t be able to work, to express themselves, to tell their stories. Anybody who is even a little bit different will be a target for Taliban soldiers.
So, what can we do? What should we do? How can we help? Index and many other of its sister human rights organisations have been desperately trying to support people on the ground to get to safety. There are amazing charities who will support Afghani refugees when they get to a safe haven. This is the least we can do. But my fear isn’t today or tomorrow when the world’s media is reporting hourly on events – it’s what happens next week, next month, next year when the world is distracted by a new crisis – a new disaster. What happens to the people left behind then – when the Taliban think the world has moved on?
Index is working with people on the ground, who are determined to stay, who want to both document the actions of the Taliban and try and protect at least an element of free speech. In the coming weeks we’ll report back on this new work programme because we’ll need your help.
But for now, we watch on in horror and heartbreak.
Postscript
As I am writing, reports of terror attacks on Kabul airport and the Baron Hotel started to emerge. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected and the brave military and civilian personnel who are doing everything they can, at huge risk, to save as many people as possible.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
24 Aug 21 | Afghanistan, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
An Afghan female journalist hosts a radio program at the radio-television channel Ghazal, April 7, 2021.
Mohammad Jan Aria/Xinhua/Alamy Live News
For five days after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban insurgency, Mariam (not her real name) didn’t leave her house. As a professional athlete, this was very unusual. However, 23-year-old Mariam is also one of the city’s up and coming journalists and staying at home did not feel right.
The militant group, known for their regressive ideology and restricting women’s rights and freedoms, had forced many Afghan women to retreat in to the shelter of their homes in the days following the siege. But Mariam had enough. “I wanted to get back to work. I wanted to get out,” she said.
So on Friday, an otherwise normal day off in Kabul, Mariam decided to go to her workplace, a newsroom in the centre of the city. “Around 11.45 am, as I was getting into the car, I got a call from an unknown number. I answered it and the man on the other line, asked, ‘Are you Mariam?’ and I froze in my tracks.”
“He sounded friendly, as though we might have been old friends,” she said.
But something about his voice made her very uncomfortable. Still, she replied, “Yes I am.” He then asked her, “Do you know me?” and she replied, “I don’t and I don’t have your number saved either. Who is this?”
Without answering her question, the man continued, this time in a much less friendly tone. “He identified the location of my office and asked if I worked there. I was so scared, I didn’t reply. He then said, ‘We [the Taliban] are coming for you’ and I immediately hung up and put my phone on airplane mode.”
Mariam is not alone.
In her short career as a journalist and TV presenter, ‘Marzia’ has received many threats from insurgents as well as fundamentalist groups who disapprove of her work in the media. As a woman and as a member of Afghanistan’s persecuted Hazara ethnic group, she was no stranger to threats, but they were always a world away from her vibrant and empowered life in Kabul. Until, that is, the country fell into the hands of the Taliban on 15 August.
‘Fauzia’, another Afghan female journalist, said: “Of course there were challenges of being a journalist in Afghanistan; it was never easy. But I could deal with those because we had platforms, and more importantly, we had the media, to help us fight for our rights.” Fauzia is currently on the run due to the threats she has received.
The Taliban seized control of the majority of the country earlier this month, including the capital. The Afghan president along with many top government officials were forced to flee after being asked to resign on the pretext of creating a transitional government. The militants, however, have taken control of the capital and large parts of the country creating panic and chaos among those who have been outspoken critics of the Taliban.
Since the fall, there has been a rush of Afghans trying to escape the country to avoid persecution from the Taliban who are known to be vengeful. The Journalists in Distress (JID) network, a collaborative effort of media support organisations like the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) are working in collaboration to evacuate Afghan journalists to safety.
Nadine Hoffman, deputy director of the IWMF said: “The race to evacuate Afghan media workers and their families has been the most challenging and complex emergency the press freedom community has faced. Conditions on the ground, particularly at the Hamid Karzai International Airport, have made this gargantuan task feel at times insurmountable.”
“Those individuals we are supporting to evacuate have faced extreme physical duress; they have been beaten, shot at, and threatened in their homes by the Taliban. It is heartbreaking to watch this tragedy unfold. Women journalists voices in Afghanistan are being silenced.”
In a statement on Monday, the CPJ shared that they had registered and vetted the cases of nearly 400 journalists in need of evacuation, and is reviewing thousands of additional requests. Other organisations have similarly large lists of media persons seeking safe passage out of Kabul.
In a press conference held the day after the fall, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid assured that media will remain independent but said the journalists “should not work against national values”. However, despite the group’s assurance of a full amnesty to those who work in media and the previous government, Afghan journalists do not trust the terror group with a history of violence against the Afghan media.
Already, several journalists have reported being threatened by Taliban members across the country. Meanwhile, the CPJ also documented multiple attacks on the press from the Taliban in the last week, including physical attacks. A female state TV anchor was also forced off the air, underlining the Taliban’s lack of commitment to protecting the rights of journalists.
Several at-risk journalists shared that the Taliban had been visiting their homes collecting information on “those who worked with infidels” and warned that action would be taken later, implying this would happen after the complete withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan.
“We knew sooner or later they would come looking for us so we destroyed all our documents, certificates and IDs that show our work with the Americans,” said a journalist from Nangarhar province, ‘Sahar’. “It was the body of my lifetime of achievements, and I set it all on fire,” she added, the grief evident in her voice.
However, it did little good, as the Taliban came to Sahar’s neighbourhood armed with biometrics devices seeking to identify people with data that was shared with the previous government. “They haven’t come to our house yet. I know they will kill me. They have already killed some of my friends,” referring to the journalists assassinated in March in Jalalabad.
Sahar’s fears are not unfounded. Taliban fighters killed the relative of a Deutsche Welle (DW) journalist on Thursday, while looking for him during a similar door-to-door search as described by Sahar. “They shot dead one member of his family and seriously injured another,” DW reported.
Earlier this month, unidentified gunmen shot and killed Toofan Omar, the owner of Paktia Ghag Radio. Officials in Kabul said Omar was targeted by the Taliban due to his work.
Last month, the group killed and mutilated the body of Danish Siddiqui, an Indian journalist working with Reuters, in Spin Boldak in Kandahar province.
Notably, of the total seven journalists killed in Afghanistan this year, four have been women, highlighting the increased risks women in media like Mariam, Fauzia and Sahar face. Already, earlier this year, the Afghan Journalists Safety Committee reported that nearly 20 per cent of Afghan women quit the media due to the threats they faced. The Afghan media watchdog reported that at least nine provinces in the country had no female journalists employed in the media, essentially depriving women’s voices and presence in the national debate.
These figures are feared to have risen considerably in the last week. “Soon there will be no one left to tell the story of Afghanistan,” Fauzia remarked.
After the call Mariam received on Friday, she made a decision she never thought she would ever have to make. Choking back tears, she said. “I decided to leave my homeland; a country I had previously wanted to serve.”
“I went back home, packed a small bag and left for the airport with my sister. We got on the first plane they [offered]. I don’t even know where we are going but I know we can’t live there.”
[All names of journalists in this article have been changed to protect their identities.][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
