26 Jul 21 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”117103″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]The importance of the role of whistleblowers in exposing corruption and malpractice is well-established in law and rightly celebrated in a string of Hollywood movies from All the President’s Men to Erin Brockovich. But whistleblowers should also be celebrated as champions of free expression. Join us for the launch of the Summer 2021 edition of Index on Censorship, which highlights several prominent cases around the world.
Whistleblowers are extraordinary people, who take incredible risks to bring the rich and powerful to account. This often exacts a terrible personal price, with whistleblowers losing their livelihoods, their mental health and even their freedom.
Daniel Ellsberg was the whistleblower behind the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the secret history of American involvement in Vietnam .
Brittany Winner is the sister of Reality Winner, the former US intelligence specialist who leaked details of Russian interference in the 2016 American election.
Martin Bright, editor of Index on Censorship, will chair the discussion.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Tuesday 3 August 2021, 17:00 to 18:00 (BST)
Where: ONLINE
Tickets: Free, advance booking essential
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Jul 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117110″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]When launching Index on Censorship 50 years ago, our founder, the poet and novellist Stephen Spender, stated: “The world is moving in two directions: one is towards the narrowing of distances through travel, increasing interchange between scientists (who take a world view of problems such as the exploration of space, ecology, population): the other is towards the shutting down of frontiers, the ever more jealous surveillance by governments and police of individual freedom. The opposites are fear and openness; and in being concerned with the situation of those who are deprived of their freedoms one is taking the side of openness.”
This was written in 1971 – 36 years before the launch of the iPhone – and yet could easily have been written today, especially our increasing reliance on scientists as global citizens in the world of global pandemics.
But given the news this week about the reach of the spyware Pegasus we are reminded of both the advances of emergent technology and the ongoing determination of repressive regimes and hostile actors to use it against their citizens, to silence critics and to restrict media freedom. Those seeking to censor and intimidate in the 21st century may be using different tools, but the objective remains the same.
Pegasus, developed by NSO, is being used to extract information from the smartphones of its targets. In theory this technology was developed for use by the security services of those countries that have a positive human rights record. In reality it seems that the use of this technology is much more extensive and it is being used to target human rights defenders, civil rights activists and journalists around the world.
Using this spyware to undermine those who seek to uphold the liberal values we all hold dear is not only a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – it is also an attack on every one of us who stands for those values.
The public exposure of the impact of this technology is investigative journalism at its best; the use of this technology by state actors to undermine their citizenry and core human rights is the new frontier in the fight against censorship and surveillance.
How we communicate with each other has evolved beyond all recognition in the last half century and yet we know that tyrants and repressive regimes around the world have the same objectives that they always have – to retain power by any means necessary, which is why they are using every tool at their disposal. Our job is to fight loudly and expose each attack on our collective human rights.
Index has always been on the side of openness and proudly (and loudly) taken a stand against repression. We continue that tradition today and stand with the journalists and activists around the world who are being targeted by repressive regimes – whether by Pegasus or any other technology.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Jul 21 | Academic Freedom, News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117096″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]A high school cheerleader has won an important victory for the right of students to express their opinions freely while off campus.
At the end of June, the US Supreme Court ruled eight to one that the rights of high school student Brandi Levy had been violated in a case dating back to 2017.
After failing to make the varsity cheerleading team, Levy had posted profanity-laced criticisms of the team roster on Snapchat while off campus at a local convenience store. The team captain kicked her off the junior varsity cheerleading team for a year as punishment.
The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether schools had the right to regulate off-campus speech; it ruled that her posts did not disrupt school operations so Levy’s rights had been violated. The court maintained that schools have a right to regulate speech in some “school-related, off-campus activities” without defining what that would look like.
David Cole, the legal director of the ACLU, called the ruling a victory for students, saying “the message from this ruling is clear – free speech is for everyone, and that includes public school students”. The director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, which represented Levy, characterised the precedent established by the ruling, saying they successfully argued that “students have greater free speech rights out of school and on their own time.”
Despite the nature of her comments, Levy was motivated to fight for her rights. She commented publicly that she was proud to have advocated for the rights of students saying, “young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school”.
Recent graduates from Blake High School in Maryland broadly agree with the principle the court ruled on – that her speech did not disrupt the safety of the school.
Cole Shankel, class of 2023, said, “She’s overreacting… cheerleading is lame,” but added, “I don’t think public schools should be allowed to punish students for off-campus speech.”
Jeniffer Ventura, class of 2021, pointed out, “Being held accountable for your actions online is important,” expressing concern about online hate speech and racism affecting the safety and security of the community. Julian Kabik, also the class of 2021, stated simply, “If you are not making a deliberate threat online, then I don’t think you should be punished.”
This is the first student free speech case to favour students since the landmark 1969 case Tinker v Demois. The case considered students who had been suspended for wearing black armbands in protest at the war in Vietnam; the court ruled schools must show a substantial disruption to school operations, besides the speech being unpleasant, to restrict a student’s right to free speech.
The right of students to exercise free speech established in the case has been eroded by others since then. In 1986, Bethel v Fraser ruled that schools could regulate certain styles of expression if they were sexually vulgar. In 1989, in Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, the court ruled schools had the right to regulate the content of school publications. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Morse v Frederick that schools may restrict speech at or in view of a school-supervised event if it promoted illegal drug use. The US Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit Court in 2013 and Ninth Circuit Court in 2014 ruled a student’s dress could be restricted in two separate cases related to wearing the confederate flag or American flag, respectively. The courts ruled student dress had incited disruption, and the Supreme Court declined to hear both cases.
The Levy ruling has broken the trend in student speech law, affirming students’ off-campus rights and considering the role of extracurricular activities for the first time. A ruling against Levy would have further crippled the original 1969 ruling, allowing schools to restrict students based on their speech being unpalatable and extending a school’s authority to restrict student speech to include online and off-campus speech.
Despite this, the Levy ruling is not a decisive victory for American students’ right to free speech.
When students are on campus, schools act in loco parentis – they function in place of parents. This gives schools legal authority over minors’ rights while they are at school and formally gives all other authority over minors to their legal guardians. This doctrine and the fact that Levy was off campus when she made the posts was at the centre of the majority opinion’s arguments. Since the Levy ruling reaffirms the school’s on-campus authority over student’s rights, this aspect can be interpreted as an opening to further restrict student speech when on campus.
In questioning, some justices raised concerns about a school’s ability to punish off-campus speech that was threatening to other students. Other justices raised concerns of what schools would do with authority over off-campus speech that was politically controversial.
The justices’ questions indicate that they feel the issue of off-campus speech needs to be further unpacked. All but two of the justices are under the age of 70, and all three of former President Donald Trump’s appointments are under the age of 60. With the composition of the court being unlikely to change any time soon, the right of students to express themselves freely may yet be further eroded.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Jul 21 | Cuba, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117089″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Cuban revolution has always been adept at PR. Even in the early days, before the revolution succeeded in overthrowing the American backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, Cuban rebel leader Fidel Castro was a master of propaganda.
When the American journalist Herbert Matthews visited the Sierra Maestra in 1957 and sat down with Castro for an interview, the guerrilla chief fooled Matthews into thinking rebel forces were stronger than they were by marching the same columns of men past at various intervals and by having ‘messengers’ report the existence of non-existent rebel units.
“From the look of things, General Batista cannot possibly hope to suppress the Castro revolt,” wrote The New York Times’ correspondent in his subsequent dispatch.
Over the ensuing half a century, Havana’s propaganda has been equally powerful, fostering an image of Cuba abroad as a besieged outpost against United States aggression; as a beacon of healthcare and education; and as a country in which children are taught to live lives of heroic self-sacrifice in emulation of revolutionary icon Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara (who is the subject of a cult of personality in Cuba).
For those living at a great distance from the Cuban reality, it is easy to be fooled by the idealistic penumbra that surrounds the Cuban revolution. The arbitrary arrests, the grinding poverty, the tentacles of the state that reach into every aspect of daily life – all are submerged in the minds of foreign admirers beneath a tide of romantic kitsch.
Yet as thousands of Cubans take to the streets in unprecedented protests against the dictatorship, it is important that Western human rights and free speech organisations do not allow the distorted image of Cuba as a tropical socialist outpost against capitalism to muddy their thinking.
Many, thankfully, have not. Each year Amnesty International produces a detailed and damning report on the human rights situation in Cuba. In its 2020 report, Amnesty noted that the authorities in Havana “continued to repress all forms of dissent, including by imprisoning independent artists, journalists and members of the political opposition”. Since the mass protests began on 11 July 2021, Amnesty has been closely monitoring the situation, publishing regular updates as to the whereabouts of Cuban activists and dissident voices.
Human Rights Watch has produced similarly comprehensive reports in its coverage of the deteriorating situation on the island for opponents of the dictatorship. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the Cuban government’s repression of citizen protests.
Yet despite the mass of evidence that the government in Havana is an egregious violator of human rights, evidence that is accumulating in real time; and despite the landmark protests by thousands of Cubans who risk imprisonment simply for taking to the streets, one senses that Cuba is unlikely to become a cause célèbre activists in the way that, say, Palestine has become so, or even Belarus or Myanmar.
Worse, some left-wing organisations in the United States and Britain, ostensibly dedicated to human rights and firmly embedded within the social democratic institutions within their countries, have sided openly with the dictatorship. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Young Labour, Black Lives Matter and the Progressive International have all released statements in support of the dictatorship in recent days.
It is vital that organisations dedicated to free speech and human rights continue to draw attention to repressive conditions and abuses inside Cuba. However it is also important that liberals and progressives take the reports that these organisations produce seriously – as seriously as they do when the same accusations are made of less fashionable (or PR-savvy) dictatorships.
During the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, many liberal and progressive voices were quick to jump on news stories featuring battalions of heroic Cuban doctors sent around the world to aid the anti-pandemic efforts. It would be nice if such interest in Cuba wasn’t so fleeting; if it looked beyond Havana’s carefully manufactured PR operation; and if it expressed itself for once by actually listening to the Cuban people and what they want.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”7874″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Jul 21 | Media Freedom, Netherlands, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117066″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Nine days after he was shot multiple times, Dutch crime reporter Peter R de Vries has died of the injuries he sustained, his family announced on Thursday afternoon. Peter will be remembered not only for his investigations and stories, but also for the way he stood in solidarity with crime victims, deeply motivated to help them find justice. It is widely believed that his decision to act as the confidant of a crown witness in a big organised crime trial was the reason for his murder.
Reactions to De Vries’s death have started to pour in. RTL, the station that broadcasts the daily news show RTL Boulevard, in which De Vries had appeared on the day he was attacked, said: “Peter’s influence remains stronger than any act of hate can ever be. We will continue to speak freely about wrongs and injustice in society, like he did his whole life.” The Dutch Association of Editors-in-Chief said: “Peter R de Vries was an icon of Dutch journalism and an incredible support for many people. It is intensly sad that he is no longer among us. With Peter, we lost an tireless and courageous fighter for justice.”
Many victims of crimes he investigated and solved expressed their sadness over De Vries’ death.
The crime beat
De Vries started his career in 1978 as a trainee-journalist at De Telegraaf, the biggest newspaper in the Netherlands. He started using the R of his second name Rudolf to distinguish himself from a colleague with the same name. Crime journalism wasn’t really a beat yet, but he took it up and soon published his first story about a murder.
He became more famous in 1983, when he reported about the kidnapping of beer magnate Freddy Heineken. The book he published about the kidnapping a few years later remained the bestselling true crime book in the Netherlands for years.
He left the paper within a year to become the editor-in-chief of the weekly Aktueel, which he soon turned into a crime magazine. After that, he switched to TV, although he always continued to write as well.
In the early 1990s, he went freelance and started the weekly TV show ‘Peter R de Vries, crime journalist’. An episode in 2008 brought international fame: he used an undercover reporter to trigger Joran van der Sloot, a suspect in the disappearance of US teenager Natalee Holloway on the Caribbean island of Aruba, into confessing. He won an Emmy Award for it.
Another one of De Vries’s investigations revealed one of the biggest errors of judgement in Dutch judicial history: two brothers were convicted of murder, but De Vries’ investigations lead to a re-trial and acquittal, after which the real murderer could be apprehended.
Apart from his investigation into the Heineken kidnapping, De Vries was not known for reporting organised crime. He mostly focused on cold cases, deceit and scams, standing beside the victims and often confronting perpetrators in front of the camera. Him being there carrying out his own investigations with a thorough knowledge of both the criminal world and the justice system became a fact of life for both police and prosecutors, who were relentlessly held to account by De Vries as well.
Looking in the mirror
Soon after the attack on De Vries’s life last week, two suspects were arrested: a 21-year old man from Rotterdam and a 35-year old man from Poland. Although the police investigation into the murder continues, it is assumed that they were hired by suspects in the so-called Marengo case, which revolves around an extensive, exceptionally violent drugs gang, lead by Redouan Taghi, who was arrested in 2019. Peter R de Vries was the confidant of the Crown witness in the case, Nabil B.
In an interview with monthly magazine Vrij Nederland, De Vries explained: “I couldn’t have looked at myself in the mirror anymore if I had refused his request. I hold the police and the prosecutor to account and I couldn’t do that if I recoiled from requests for help myself, even if they involved risks.”
The risk was clear: in 2018, Nabil B’s brother was murdered by Taghi’s men. A year later, Derk Wiersum, Nabil B’s lawyer, was murdered. To be able to get access to his client, he gave up his position in the law office of his son Royce, where he was director and advisor.
In the last couple of years, Peter R de Vries became increasingly vocal about social issues in the Netherlands, speaking up for the rights of refugees and against racism. Even though he was respected and popular in the Netherlands, this stance triggered a flood of hate and threats against him like never before, he said.
In 2016, he won an award for speaking out against racism and inequality with ‘courage and nerve, with arguments and substance and without fear’ – which sums up De Vries quite accurately.
Peter R de Vries was 64 years old. He leaves behind a partner and two children.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Jul 21 | Belarus, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117082″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The raids and detentions conducted by Belarusian authorities on independent media outlets, human rights organisations and think tanks are a harsh escalation of attacks against human rights activists and independent journalists in Belarus.
The undersigned organisations condemn the government of Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s relentless crackdown on these groups and demand that Belarusian authorities cease their raids on press and rights organisations and release all those detained. The raids, which started on the 8th and culminated on the 14th of July are yet another escalation in an ongoing repression campaign undertaken by the Belarusian authorities to eliminate civil society in Belarus. The day before the raids Lukashenka promised to “deal with” NGOs he claims instigate unrest in the country.
Over a dozen raids were carried out by Belarusian security forces on the morning of 14 July, affecting individuals who are members or leaders of civic organizations including Viasna, Lawtrend, the Association of the World’s Belarusians Batskaushchyna (“Homeland”), the IMENA project, the Territory of Rights group, the Union of Belarusian Writers, the Movement “For Freedom”, the Belarusian Association of Journalists, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, the Belarusian Schools Association, the Human Constanta in Brest, the Polatsk Human Rights Association, Leu Sapieha Foundation, “Third Sector”, and the offices of the Belarusian People’s Front Party, the BEROC Centre for Economic Research, NOVAK sociological laboratory and the human rights organisation Gender Perspectives, as well as the apartment of the director of SYMPA.
This flagrant action against civil society and independent media in Belarus is a gross violation of the fundamental human rights to freedom of expression and association, and to freedom of the press, and should cease immediately. The international community needs to speak with a unified voice against Lukashenka’s attacks on civil society by condemning these disturbing raids, calling for the release of journalists and activists, and holding accountable the Belarusian politicians and security forces responsible for these abuses.
As members of civil society across the globe, we, the undersigned, demand the immediate and unconditional release of all detained or imprisoned journalists and activists and an end to raids, detentions, harassment, and attacks on journalists, artists, activists, and all those exercising their right to freedom of expression and association.
Signatories:
PEN America
PEN International
ARTICLE 19
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Free Press Unlimited
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
IFEX
Index on Censorship
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
13 Jul 21 | Afghanistan, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117075″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]I was on a conference call with my colleague Ajmal Omari a while ago when we were briefly interrupted by what seemed like static. The disruption was no more than the usual challenges of internet connectivity one faces while working in Afghanistan, and we continued our conversation.
After the call, Ajmal texted me to inform me that the “interruptions” were actually a number of BM-1 rockets hitting the neighbourhood of his office. While he and his colleagues survived the attack, there was considerable damage to their building and vehicles parked outside. For Ajmal, a dedicated, talented Afghan reporter and journalist, this was yet another close call.
Despite much progress in the area of free speech and expression, particularly in the years that followed the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan is a high-risk country for the journalists who work here. The risk is exacerbated for local reporters who face threats not only from the insurgent groups, but also from the strongmen and war lords that have gained power and influence in the country over the last two decades.
The situation has worsened since the US-initiated political settlement in 2019. The eventual deal that the US administration struck with the Taliban in February 2020 saw the start of a new chapter in violence in Afghanistan, one that was more bloody than anything this generation of Afghans had experienced.
Targeted violence, much of it coming from an emboldened Taliban, saw a spike in assassinations of civil activists, government officials and Afghan journalists. According to Human Rights Watch, “Taliban commanders and fighters have engaged in a pattern of threats, intimidation, and violence against members of the media”. At least 11 Afghan journalists were killed in 2020, and five more have been murdered this year, four of them women. Many others, in the meanwhile, have had several “close calls” like the one Ajmal witnessed.
Several journalists who have faced threats are seeking safe spaces in other countries, while those who can’t leave find themselves displaced internally. Over the last year, I have met and interviewed many Afghan journalists who are on the constant move to be able to survive the threats they face in their provinces. The violent threats they face are not only inhuman, but also a major blow to the Afghanistan’s free press.
One such journalist is Habibullah Sarwary, who has worked as a journalist for a decade and half in one of the most dangerous, albeit vibrant, places on Earth. Sarwary, whose name I have changed to protect his identity, is now in exile from his home in southern Afghanistan.
“I have covered everything, from war to development; I have exposed corrupt warlords and documented the rise of insurgency in the country. I have also reported on the more beautiful side of Afghanistan and its culture. But now I am a marked man,” Sarwary told me. While Sarwary is no stranger to threats arising from his profession, the murder of a colleague at the hands of the insurgent group forced him to take the threats more seriously.
Today, Sarwary is a displaced man, seeking to go home to his family. “I can’t return because the Taliban leaders have threaten to kill me if I do. My family has tried to negotiate with them but they won’t let me return,” he said, talking from a safe house where he has been holed up for the past 10 months.
As the violence in the south, and across the country, worsens, Sarwary’s hope of returning home fades further. Aside from the mental stress and physical discomfort he faces, Sarwary is also out of a job. “The south was my turf, it is my home and I am most familiar with its issues. Here I can’t do any useful work or make money to support my family back home,” he said. “I have run out of savings, and am surviving on the kindness of friends,” he added, the sadness evident in his voice.
He hopes the warring parties are able negotiate a political settlement that could reduce the violence. However, he urges the Taliban to allow him to return to his home so he can document the historical changes taking place in Afghanistan. “I should be there right now telling the story of Afghanistan,” he said.
There seems to be next to no hope of improvement in the near future. In the last three months, the withdrawal of US and Nato forces has furthered invigorated the Taliban who have launched increased military attacks on many districts across the country. Afghan journalists are risking their lives to report on these violent developments and often get targeted by warring parties who do not always provide the press the immunity they should.
The situation is worse for women in media, who not only face threats from the insurgent but also from the fundamentalist elements in society who disapprove of them. A recent report by the Afghan Journalist Safety Committee (AJSC) revealed that over 300 women in media—18 per cent of the total number of the country’s female press—quit journalism in a span of six months in 2020, reducing an already small community to the fringes of extinction.
The AJSC report also noted that nine of the 34 provinces in Afghanistan did not have a single female journalist employed by a news service. In a country where many social spaces remain gender-segregated, lack of women’s presence in media essentially means that women’s voices, concerns and issues from these areas are excluded from the national debate and discussions, not very unlike the days of the Taliban regime.
Today, as the Taliban attempts to control more territory and destabilise the rest of the country, Afghan journalists are very concerned over the future of free media in the country—a celebrated gain of the last two decades. Afghan media houses that have flourished since the fall of the Taliban had thrived because of the relatively unregulated media landscape, providing a unique platform for Afghans to vocalise their political, social and cultural diversity.
Their future in the country now remains uncertain, especially in parts where the Taliban already has some control. The insurgent group has never been one to encourage free and inclusive speech, and has often used its military might to suppress vanguards of freedom of expression. In many places, media businesses have already restrained their operations; in other regions they are withdrawing investments. The eventual fall out of this is bound to impact the unbiased, unrestricted flow of critical information. The information blackout will in turn contribute to suppressing civic and social rights of the Afghans.
It has never been more clear than it is now, that increasing attacks on Afghan media are an attempt to trigger an intellectual blackout of an entire generation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
09 Jul 21 | Media Freedom, Netherlands, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117066″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Dutch crime journalist Peter R de Vries is fighting for his life in a hospital in Amsterdam, after he was shot in the head on Tuesday evening. He had just left the studio of a TV show to which he is a regular contributor. Two suspects have been arrested.
De Vries is one of the best-known journalists in the Netherlands and is recognised for his deep commitment to the victims of the crimes he investigates. Tenacious like a pitbull, he pursues their stories to deliver justice.
He doesn’t shy away from crossing the boundaries of journalism either: he recently started a crowdfunding campaign to raise one million euros to be used as tip money to help solve a cold case of a missing student dating back to 1983.
The attempt on his life is likely to be connected to another step he took away from journalism: he became the confidant of Nabil B., a Crown witness in a trial against an exceptionally violent drugs gang. Although police haven’t commented on the attempted murder yet, few doubt that this is the context in which it needs to be placed.
In an interview with Index on Censorship, De Vries’ colleague Gerlof Leistra, a crime reporter for weekly EW Magazine for more than 30 years, bluntly stated: “This murder attempt is not an attack on press freedom and is not related to journalism.”
Some may question this view; investigative journalists have often pushed at the boundaries in order to secure the story.
Leistra said he has always respected De Vries as a colleague, and pointed out that De Vries never focuses on organised crime in his journalistic investigations. Leistra said: “With his stories and book about the Heineken abduction and murder in 1983 as an exception, he focused on cold cases, deceit, scams. He’s a fantastic man, who could get genuinely wound up about an unjust parking ticket for an old lady. He crossed a journalistic line though when he became Nabil B.’s confidant.”
To be accepted as such by the authorities and get access to his client, De Vries became an employee of the lawyer’s office that represented the Crown witness. It was a clear risk.
The so-called Marengo trial revolves around one of the most violent organised crime organisations ever uncovered in the Netherlands. On trial are the gang’s leader Ridouan Taghi and more than a dozen of his accomplices.
The pursuit of the gang has already led to the murder of others connected with the case. In 2018, Nabil B.’s brother was murdered by Taghi’s men. A year later, Derk Wiersum, Nabil B.’s lawyer, was also murdered. Despite the risk, De Vries refused personal protection.
In a recent interview with magazine Vrij Nederland, De Vries said: “I’m not a scared person, but Nabil’s brother and his previous lawyer were murdered so you don’t have to be hysterical to think something may happen. That’s part of the job. A crime reporter who thinks ‘it’s all getting a bit too intense now’ when the going gets tough, should instead work for Libelle,” referring to a weekly women’s magazine.
Crime journalist Leistra said that the murder attempt is an attack on the rechtsstaat, the system of legal institutions that upholds and protects the state of law. Thomas Bruning, general secretary of the Dutch Journalists Union (NVJ) agrees in part. He told Index on Censorship: “We have to nuance the image of this murder attempt being about press freedom only. Nevertheless, for his colleagues, this is an attack on one of them, and it creates a chilling climate.”
This climate has become colder in the last couple of years. Research by the NVJ has shown that more journalists in the Netherlands are getting targeted verbally or physically for their work. National broadcaster NOS last year decided not to use vans with its logo any more because it is increasingly triggering agression.
On Twitter, Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders recently called journalists ‘scum’.
Bruning said: “Criminals aren’t triggered by that of course, but this all complicates the role of journalists in society. There have been threats against journalists, and now one such threat was put into practice.”
This is also what Bruning discussed with the authorities this week during a meeting with Justice Minister Ferd Grapperhaus.
He said: “It’s positive that two suspects have been arrested. The authorities do take this seriously so I don’t think we can draw a parallel with murders of journalists elesewhere in Europe.”
Bruning was referring to the murders of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta in 2017 and Ján Kuciak in Slovakia in 2018, which laid bare corruption within the state.
Nevertheless, Bruning sees a development to which he drew Grapperhaus’s attention. He said: “Before, criminals killed each other, then they murdered a lawyer, now an attempted murder of a journalist for, most likely, his role in a trial. Who knows, maybe the next target is a journalist who only reports about crime. It’s a slippery slope.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
09 Jul 21 | BannedByBeijing, China, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117061″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Threats to free speech and free expression come in many guises. In the year since I’ve joined the team at Index, I’ve used this blog to highlight issues as diverse as journalists being assassinated in Afghanistan to the threats of new British legislation on online harms.
One of recurring themes of my blogs has been the way in which authoritarian regimes and groups use every tool at their disposal to repress their populations. From Belarus to Myanmar, from Modi to Trump, we’ve seen global leaders act against their own populations to hold onto power and stop dissent.
For an organisation such as Index it would be easy to think that our job was solely to highlight the worst excesses of these despots, to shine a spotlight on their actions and to celebrate the work and activities of those inspirational people who stand up against this tyranny. And of course, that’s exactly what we were founded to do. But as the world moves on and technology and finance facilitate new ways of communicating to the world, Index also has a responsibility to investigate, analyse and expose the impact of some countries beyond their borders.
Over the course of the last year, Index’s attention has been drawn to the fact that there have been multiple high-profile examples of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) using its influence beyond its border in order to manipulate the world’s view of China and what it means to be Chinese:
Since the implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong in June 2020, universities in the UK and in the US have reportedly had to change the way they teach certain courses – grading papers by number not name, asking students to present anonymised work of others so nothing can be attributed to an individual student and limited debate in lectures. All in order to make sure that the students are protected, and their families aren’t targeted at home in China.
In September 2020 Disney released a new film – Mulan. This film not only represents Mulan as Han Chinese rather than Mongolian as she likely was in the legend, but it was also filmed, in part, in Xinjiang province, home of the persecuted Uighur community. Seemingly an effort to change the narrative on the ongoing Uighur genocide happening in Xinjiang.
In October 2020, a scheduled exhibition on Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire in Nantes, France was postponed – not because of Covid19 but because the CCP reportedly attempted to change the narrative of the exhibition, attempting to rewrite history.
It is clear that the CCP is using soft (sharp) power in a concerted effort to censor dissent and to create a narrative that is in keeping with Xi Jinping’s vision in an effort to secure international support for the CCP, which this year celebrates its 100th anniversary. We have no idea how strategic or vast this level of censorship is. What we do know is that it is happening across Europe and beyond.
It is in this vein that I’m delighted to be able to tell you about a new workstream for Index:
#BannedbyBeijing will seek to analyse and expose the extent to which China is trying to manipulate the conversation abroad.
Next week I’m delighted that we have an amazing panel to get the ball rolling and to establish how big an issue this is.
So join Mareike Ohlberg, Tom Tugendhat MP, Edward Lucas and our Chair Trevor Phillips, on Wednesday as they start this vital conversation. You can sign up here >> https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/banned-by-beijing-is-china-censoring-europe-tickets-162403107065[/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 Jul 21 | Media Freedom, News and features, Slovenia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Prime minister of Slovenia Janez Janša
As Slovenia takes over the presidency of the council of the European Union, some are questioning the country’s commitment to one of the bloc’s key principles, that of the freedom of the press.
A new report by Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a coalition of non-governmental organisations that tracks press freedom in EU Member States, says Slovenia “is no longer a relative safe haven for free media” and that prime minister Janez Janša and the ruling Slovenia Democratic Party (SDS) are “undermining critical journalism, reaching for control of public service media and reshaping the media landscape to boost SDS propaganda channels while pressuring mainstream media”.
The report reveals that journalists in the country are facing rising threats of violence and women journalists in particular are facing misogynistic and sexist insults that have been legitimised by the government’s actions.
Janša, for example, has openly questioned the legitimacy of the Slovenian Press Agency (STA), which covers events in the country, and launched a vicious and completely unfounded attack on Bojan Veselinovic, its director, accusing him of murder.
Janša posted a tweet, a familiar tactic employed by the prime minister to put pressure on opposition voices online, which said: “Amazing for the EU in the 21st century that a collaborator in the murder of a journalist is still leading the STA and therefore cashes in 8,500 euros per month, more than the president of the republic.”
The allegations are unsubstantiated, but the STA is one of many opposition voices that has faced attacks this way.
Meanwhile, investigative journalist Blaž Zgaga, who questioned the government’s Covid-19 response in April, has received multiple death threats.
Slovenia’s 2006 media law is viewed as outdated and offers journalists little protections against smears and political interference.
It is clear there is a combination of the government attempting to change the media narrative, as well as defunding critical voices. It means journalists in the country are facing increasingly difficult circumstances.
The STA had its state funding revoked and will not receive it again unless it submits to direct financial oversight from the government’s communications office (though Slovenian media have since reported that funds are to be given). The move would essentially put the agency under the direct control of government communications.
It is indicative of a strategic ploy by the government to remove state funding from opposition voices, but reward its cheerleaders. The report says that “propaganda outlets parroting the party line are rewarded with lucrative advertising contracts from state institutions and companies”, for example.
Janša’s schemes have been likened to the strategy implemented by Hungarian autocrat prime minister Viktor Orbán, who has faced heavy criticism for his record on free speech, as has the government in Poland. Hungary and Poland are known to be two of the most concerning cases regarding free expression in Europe.
Ties between Janša and Orbán are known to be close, as Anuška Delić, journalist and founder of Oštro, a centre for investigative journalism, wrote in the winter 2020 edition of Index on Censorship magazine.
Motivation for Orbán’s interference in Slovenia is obvious, as he looks for supporting voices in a Europe when there is concern over his actions.
Hungarian funds, with ties to Orbán and his Fidesz party, are being funnelled into pro-SDS media outlets, which, in a country where media revenue is declining and funds are desperately sought, should be of great concern.
The outlook is not entirely bleak, the report said.
“Despite these pressures, the Slovenian independent media sector has proven to be resilient and has continued to display high-quality watchdog journalism during the pandemic. Importantly, support and solidarity between civil society, journalists’ associations and newsrooms has been strong, giving hope for the future of the media landscape in Slovenia.”
Yet not everyone is convinced.
Delić has welcomed the report’s findings, but questioned the notion that media freedom in Slovenia is not as threatened as elsewhere, and said that it will not take much for Slovenia to become the next Poland or Hungary.
“We have just witnessed a new case of meddling where the prime minister asked Val202, a public radio station, on Twitter whether it was true that they played a current protest song on Independence Day,” said Delić, who was consulted by the authors of the report. “On that day one of the speakers at the official celebration was Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán whose government’s malign influence in Slovenia is clearly portrayed throughout the report.”
As Slovenia takes on the Council presidency, the report’s authors have called on the country’s government to stop the defunding of journalism, amend current media legislation and publicly condemn threats against reporters.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Jul 21 | Croatia, Monaco, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Whistleblower Jonathan Taylor
We are delighted to announce that on Wednesday 7 July 2021, Croatian Justice Minister Ivan Malenica formally rejected the request by Monaco to extradite UK whistleblower Jonathan Taylor. Jonathan Taylor’s Support Group extends its gratitude to the Minister for taking the right decision.
The move comes following sustained calls for the past 11 months from human rights and civil liberties campaigners across Europe – and UK MPs – for his immediate release and safe return home. Legal experts backing the release of Jonathan Taylor said there was no proper legal basis for Monaco to seek Mr. Taylor’s extradition and the process was retaliatory in nature. Lawyers acting on behalf of Jonathan Taylor argued that it constituted an abuse of process.
Jonathan Taylor was arrested whilst on a family holiday in Croatia last July, and has been restrained there since. He has been isolated, away from his family, and unable to support himself or his family, all of which have taken an extreme toll on his mental wellbeing.
A former in-house lawyer for oil firm SBM Offshore based in Monaco, Jonathan Taylor blew the whistle in 2013 on a massive bribery scheme. Jonathan’s whistleblowing disclosures led to SBM Offshore paying over $800 million in fines in the US, Netherlands and Brazil and investigations which led to successful prosecutions of two former CEOs for fraud-related offences.
Yet nine years later, he was arrested on a questionable Interpol Red Notice whilst on holiday, and wanted for questioning in Monaco over allegations made by his former employer over his settlement. The Red Notice was withdrawn by Monaco last December on the eve of Interpol making a determination on its validity. Jonathan denies wrongdoing and his lawyers have long argued there is no legal basis for extraditing him for questioning as he is neither charged nor convicted of any offences.
“I am of course elated that justice has finally prevailed and I am appreciative that Minister of Justice Ivan Malenica was able to pay regard to the salient legal arguments of my lawyers that were seemingly overlooked by the Courts in making his decision to reject Monaco’s flawed attempt at extraditing me,” states Jonathan Taylor.
“Special thanks go to all my supporters in Europe, overseas and in Croatia who somehow kept me sane in my year of need! Be assured that I remain resolute and proud of exposing serious wrongdoing at SBM Offshore and I will never be intimidated by the corrupt and those that shamefully seek retaliation against me for exposing them. I continue to stand ready to assist the Monaco Prosecutor in the event that a decision is made to pursue those responsible for SBM Offshore’s illicit business practices instead of me.”
We agree with Jonathan. The Minister of Justice of Croatia, Ivan Malenica, carefully considered the position of Jonathan Taylor as a whistleblower and a protected witness. His decision in this case has wider implications for the rule of law in Europe: it is a victory for the public’s right to know about wrongdoing by protecting the messengers of that information. Whistleblowers play a vital role in Europe’s fight against global corruption. Croatia has demonstrated its commitment to the rule of law and to the protection of whistleblowers.
We now call on Monaco to drop any further proceedings against Jonathan Taylor and to focus on the actions of SBM Offshore as a proper target for their investigations.
We wish Jonathan a safe return to the UK where he can begin to rebuild his life.
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
Martin Bright, Editor, Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
Protect (United Kingdom)
Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers (United Kingdom)
Centre for Free Expression (Canada)
Free Press Unlimited
The Government Accountability Project (USA)
ARTICLE 19
The Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF)
Transparency International EU
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation (Malta)
Pištaljka (Serbia)
Blueprint for Free Speech (Germany and Australia)
The Signals Network (USA/France)
Transparency International – Bulgaria
Transparency International Italy
SpeakOut SpeakUp Ltd
European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions (EUROMIL)
Transparency International Secretariat
Access Info Europe
GlobaLeaks
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Eurocadres – Council of European Professional & Managerial Staff
Professor David Lewis, Middlesex University (UK)
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
Sherpa (France)
WhistleblowersUK
Baroness Kramer, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing (UK)
Mary Robinson MP, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing (UK)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
06 Jul 21 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117041″ img_size=”large”][vc_column_text]
Every time a European university pressures an academic to temper their criticism of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), every time a filmmaker opts to amend their film to avoid offending the Chinese authorities, and every time a Chinese citizen living in Europe self-censors in an effort to protect themselves or their families in China, the CCP is effectively censoring Europe.
This virtual event will explore the extent to which the CCP is exploiting its growing influence in order to erode freedom of expression in Europe, and will look at what needs to be done to protect our fundamental rights and our democracy.
Speakers:
Mareike Ohlberg, China analyst and co-author of Hidden Hand: How the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World
Tom Tugendhat MP, Chairman of the UK’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee
Edward Lucas, journalist and editor of the China Influence Monitor
Trevor Phillips, chair of Index on Censorship (event chair)
Register for tickets here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
