05 Jul 21 | Belarus, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Andrei Aliaksandrau
Human rights organisations will today urge UN Human Rights Council Member States to maintain explicit calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Belarusian journalist and human rights defender Andrei Aliaksandrau, who is now facing up to 15 years in prison on baseless charges of “treason to the state”.
Aliaksandrau has long been a defender of freedom of expression in Belarus and beyond, having previously held positions at Index on Censorship and ARTICLE 19, among other media and free speech organisations. He was detained on 12 January 2021, along with his partner, Irina Zlobina and has remained in detention since then.
The charges against Aliaksandrau and Zlobina stem from allegations that they paid the fines of journalists and protesters whom authorities detained during last year’s pro-democracy protests, part of a concerning trend by Belarusian authorities to use the imposition of new legislation to severely limit freedoms of assembly, association, and expression. To date, only Aliaksandrau has been charged with treason.
“The regime has begun to impose tougher charges on those in pre-trial detention to further suppress dissent,” ARTICLE 19 will tell the UN Human Rights Council today. “Andrei Aliaksandrau, a journalist who has been behind bars since January, has recently seen his charges related to public order escalate to more severe charges of high treason under Article 356 of the Belarus Criminal Code.”
“[W]e are gravely concerned for journalist and media manager Andrei Aliaksandrau,” Human Rights House Foundation will tell the UN Human Rights Council. “We call for his immediate release and exoneration.”
The calls from international civil society are part of an Interactive Dialogue at the HRC with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Anaïs Marin. This formal agenda item follows submission of the Special Rapporteur’s regular reporting to the Council. In her report, the Special Rapporteur notes that “several human rights defenders and activists are currently imprisoned for having provided, through their organizations, charity support to persons detained during the post-electoral crackdown in the form of legal assistance or solidarity funds to pay for fines.”
The Special Rapporteur has reported regularly to the Council since the mandate was created in 2012 in response to “the existence of a pattern of serious violations of human rights […] that is of a systemic nature.” The arrest and detention of Aliaksandrau is another example of this pattern and follows the death on 21 May 2021 of political prisoner Vitold Ashurak while incarcerated by the authorities for doing legitimate human rights work.
For more information please contact:
Jessica Ni Mhainin, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Index on Censorship: [email protected]
Dave Elseroad, Head of Advocacy, Human Rights House Foundation: [email protected], +41 78 344 36 18
Joanna Szymanska, Senior Programme Officer for Europe and Central Asia, ARTICLE 19: [email protected] [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Jul 21 | Algeria, Awards, Brazil, Burma, Djibouti, Egypt, Fellowship 2021, Kyrgyzstan, News and features, Nicaragua, Niger, Press Releases, Russia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship has today (5 July) revealed the shortlisted candidates for the charity’s 2021 Freedom of Expression Awards. The winners will be announced at the annual Freedom of Expression Awards Gala on 12 September 2021, and this year’s awards are particularly significant as the charity marks its fiftieth year defending freedom of expression around the globe.
Index on Censorship chief executive Ruth Smeeth said:
“As Index begins to mark its 50th birthday it’s clear that the battle to guarantee free expression and free expression around the globe has never been more relevant. As ever we are in awe of the immense bravery of our award nominees as they stand firm, demanding their rights under repressive regimes. They are inspirational and it is our privilege to help tell their stories.”
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. Index on Censorship believes that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution, and aim to raise awareness about threats to free expression and the importance of free speech.
Trevor Philips, Chair of the Index on Censorship Board of Trustees says:
“It’s been half a century since Index declared itself a voice for the persecuted. Today, the opponents of freedom are more numerous and more determined than ever to suppress opponents of the powerful. There is more need than ever to campaign for a diversity of voices to be heard. Our awards are just one candle in the growing gale of repression, and it is humbling to be able to back those who keep the flame of free expression alight.”
Awards will be presented in three categories: campaigning, arts, and journalism. This year’s panel of judges includes Afghan-born Pakistani poet and writer Fatima Bhutto, renowned sculptor Anish Kapoor, and feminist and LGBT activist and academic Ailbhe Smyth.
The shortlisted candidates for the Art award include Russian feminist performance artist Daria Apakhonchich, Brazilian film director Émerson Maranhão and Tatyana Zelenskaya, who is an illustrator based in Kyrgyzstan.
The Campaigning shortlist features feminist blogger and podcaster Nandar from Myanmar, Algerian human rights defender and LGBTQ activist Anouar Rahmani, and imprisoned Egyptian human rights activist Abdelrahman “Moka” Tarek.
Finally, the shortlisted candidates for the Journalism award include human rights activist and journalist Kadar Abdi Ibrahim from Djibouti, co-owner of the Nicaraguan independent media outlet 100% Noticias, Veronica Chavez, and Nigerien blogger Samira Sabou who was arrested in 2020 and charged with defamation under a restrictive 2019 cybercrime law.
Art
Daria Apakhonchich
Daria Apakhonchich is a performance artist from Russia, who focuses mainly on women’s rights and artistic freedom. Among other things, she has participated in a performance art piece called ‘Vulva Ballet’ and designed an artistic lament for Anastasia Yeshchenko, who was murdered by her partner in 2019. In December 2020, Apakhonchich became one of the first artists labelled a ‘foreign agent’ by Russian authorities. She was arrested in January 2021 and is now required to add a disclaimer to all social media posts identifying her as a foreign agent.
Émerson Maranhão
Émerson Maranhão is a film director from Brazil, who focuses mainly on LGBTQ+ visibility. His documentary Those Two (2018) follows the lives of two trans men. In 2019 President Jair Bolsonaro moved to cancel funding for movies with LGBTQ+ themes. Bolsonaro explicitly referred to Maranháo’s screenplay Transversais when defending the move. Funding was later reinstated, but members of the LGBT community and their allies continue to face discrimination in Brazil.
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.
Journalism
Kadar Abdi Ibrahim
Kadar Abdi Ibrahim is a human rights activist and journalist from Djibouti. As an outspoken human rights activist, journalist and blogger, Abdi Ibrahim has been a frequent target of the regime. Kadar Abdi served as co-director and chief editor of L’Aurore, Djibouti’s only privately-owned media outlet, before it was banned in 2016. In April 2018, after returning from Geneva, where he carried out advocacy activities in preparation for Djibouti’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), intelligence services raided Kadar Abdi’s house and confiscated his passport. He has been unable to leave the country since then. In March 2020, he was named ‘Human Rights Defender of the Month’ by Defend the Defenders.
Verónica Chávez
Verónica Chávez is the co-owner of 100% Noticias, an online Nicaraguan media outlet dedicated to providing critical journalism. In 2018, police raided the offices of 100% Noticias and arrested Chávez, her husband journalist Miguel Mora and news director Lucia Pineda. Chávez was released, but Mora and Pineda were charged and imprisoned for a year. Despite the intense repression, Chávez continued to run 100% Noticias during that time. In October 2020, Chávez was violently attacked by members of paramilitary groups close to the government, and was left in intensive care. She subsequently saw an outpouring of support, including from the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which condemned the attack.
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.
Campaigning
Nandar
Nandar is a feminist advocate, translator, storyteller from Myanmar. She is the creator of two podcasts: Feminist Talks and G-Taw Zagar Wyne. She founded the Purple Feminists Group and co-directed a production of The Vagina Monologues in Yangon. Building upon her experience as a woman in Myanmar, Nandar now uses her podcasts to tackle taboo topics in the country such as menstruation and abortion. In 2020, Nandar was named on the BBC’s list of 100 most influential and inspirational women around the world. She continues to speak up for justice and equality both from personal and political spheres.
Anouar Rahmani
Anouar Rahmani is a human rights defender, campaigner and writer from Algeria. He advocates for freedom of expression, the rights of minorities, and LGBTQ+ rights in Algeria. He is the first Algerian activist who has publicly called for same-sex marriage to be legally recognised in the country. Rahmani has received death threats and persecution due to his work. In 2017 he was questioned by police for “insulting God” in his novel the City of White Shadows. In 2020, Rahmani was convicted of “insulting state officials” in social media posts and ordered to pay a fine of 50,000 Dinar (£290). Rahmani believes that he is being criminalised in retaliation for his work defending freedom of expression and LGBTQ+ rights in Algeria.
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 and solitary confinement. 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. As of July 2021, he remains in prison.
Notes to editors:
For more information on the awards, please contact Leah Cross, [email protected]
For any press-related queries, please contact Luke Holland, [email protected][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Jul 21 | Burma, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117025″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Myanmar’s military authorities this week began to release more than 2,000 people who had been jailed as part of the protests against the country’s military coup in February. Those released included journalists, actors and other celebrities.
Military spokesman Zaw Min Tun said earlier this week that around 2,300 people were being released.
“They took part in protests but not in leading roles. They didn’t participate in violent acts,” he told the news website Irrawaddy.
Myanmar’s Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) said in a statement: “The junta detained innocents. Torture is used as policy by this military, detainees will suffer long-term physical and mental illness. There was no recognition of the injustice and suffering caused today, and no mention of the right to compensation.”
“They are arresting people who should never have been detained in the first place, those released will be threatened and suffer from trauma. They will need rehabilitation and understanding of the injustice they experienced”, said AAPP joint secretary U Bo Kyi. “Any release must aim at real reform, including the release of Aung Sun Suu Kyi. Violence must end, and those who committed torture and murder brought to justice.”
Poets in Myanmar in 2018 before the current horrors. Maung Yu Py is far right, laughing
Not everyone detained following the coup is so lucky and the country’s poets are suffering at the military’s hands more than most.
In the summer issue of Index on Censorship magazine, out later this month, we publish the poems of K Za Win and Khet Thi, who have both died at the hands of Myanmar’s military in recent months.
Other poets’ lives have been spared but they remain in jail despite the prisoner release.
Maung Yu Py, a household name in contemporary Burmese poetry, was arrested at a protest in his hometown of Myeik on 9 March. Two months later, he was sentenced to two years in Myeik prison for “making statements conducing to public mischief” where he remains today.
Fellow poet Ko Ko Thett has translated his work “A poem for real” into English for Index. We call for Maung Yu Py’s release.
—
A poem for real
By Maung Yu Py
Only those
backed up by strongboxes
make love after love after love.
As for me,
I am with a token of a girlfriend.
Having to endure life is real.
I don’t know why
I am Charlie Chaplinette over and over again.
Lest someone should thieve,
the plastic cup is chained
to the charity water tap,
exactly the kind of installation art
the age demands.
This year too
Asia’s social-realism trophy
we will win.
Every time I sit down for a poem
I’ve gotta get up for a dog’s yelp.
Translated by ko ko thett
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Jul 21 | Belarus, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117020″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship and 13 other human rights, freedom of expression, media freedom, and journalists’ organisations unreservedly condemn the arbitrary detention and judicial harassment of human rights defender and journalist Andrei Aliaksandrau, who is now facing up to 15 years in prison on baseless charges of “treason to the state”.
Aliaksandrau has long been a defender of freedom of expression in Belarus and beyond, having previously held positions at the Belarusian Association of Journalists, Index on Censorship, and Article 19 among other media and free speech organisations.
Aliaksandrau was detained in January 2021. The Investigative Committee, Belarus’s criminal investigation service, indicted him on public order offences, for which he was facing up to three years in prison. The charges stem from allegations that Aliaksandrau paid the fines of journalists and protesters whom authorities detained during last year’s pro-democracy protests, triggered by the highly disputed August 2020 presidential election. The Belarusian Investigative Committee and other law enforcement agencies wrongly equated this with financing unlawful protests.
On 30 June, Belapan reported that Aliaksandrau has now been charged with “treason to the state” based on the same set of allegations.
“More than €530,000 worth of fines were imposed on protesters between 9 August and the end of 2020. It is absurd to conflate efforts to help pay those fines with a public order offense, let alone treason,” the organisations said.
“Belarusian authorities created a new mark of tyranny by laying treason charges against Aliaksandrou. While we urge the release of all 529 political prisoners currently detained in Belarus, which include at least 15 journalists, we are at this point in time expressing special concern for Aliaksandrau. To date, he is the only detainee facing the fabricated charge of treason.”
“Aliaksandrau has already spent 172 days in prison for his alleged ‘crime’. We call for his immediate and unconditional release,” the organisations said.
Signed by:
Article 19
Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ)
East European Democratic Centre (EEDC)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
Human Rights Watch
IFEX
Index on Censorship
International Media Support (IMS)
PEN America
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
01 Jul 21 | Belarus, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116040″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
In a shocking development, Belarusian journalist and former Index on Censorship staff member Andrei Aliaksandrau has been charged with treason. Detained on 12 January with his partner Irina Zlobina, Andrei was originally accused of organising actions that grossly violate public order. He was due for release later this month. The new charge marks an escalation in Belarus’s draconian crackdown on press freedom and human rights activism. Andrei now faces up to 15 years in prison.
For Index on Censorship, all victims of human rights abuse are cause for concern when their right to speak out is denied, their right to freedom of expression at risk and their liberty unjustly curtailed. The excessive and groundless charges against Andrei bring the injustice faced by thousands of Belarusian journalists painfully home. For Andrei was also a key part of Index’s team in London from 2012 to 2014, bringing his expertise, his insights and his great sense of irony to the publication’s coverage of Belarus and the region. He also embraced British culture, loving pubs and beer and Liverpool FC. He is part of the Index family.
Andrei returned to Belarus after some years working in the UK out of commitment to his country and faith that a democratic future is possible. It was an act of courage, but he has never lost his sense of humour or the habit of downplaying the danger he faces.
After the sham elections in 2020, a former colleague at Index (and Everton fan) messaged him to see if he was all right. He replied: “This got to be the year Liverpool finally won the Premier League! I knew it was going to be a hell of a year.”
In the months before his detention he was working as a media manager and trainer with DW Akademie. He was previously deputy director of the Belarusian Private News Agency (Belapan). Following Andrei’s arrest, officers from the Department for Combating Economic Crimes of the Ministry of Internal Affairs searched Belapan’s office and confiscated computer hard drives along with other material.
The treatment of Andrei is a violation of his fundamental rights under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Belarus in 1973.
Andrei’s former colleagues are devastated by the news of the charges against him and will fight for his release as an act of solidarity. He was part of the UK’s human rights community – working for Index’s sister organisation Article 19 as well during his time in London. It is often the individual stories of repression and victimisation that move people to action. His unjust imprisonment must be a focus for activists, politicians and the government in the fight for long overdue democracy in Belarus.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”172″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
25 Jun 21 | Europe and Central Asia, France, Germany, Hungary, Media Freedom, News and features, Portugal
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
A protester with a pride flag confronts the Hungarian national team before their Euro 2020 match with Germany. Jvºrgen Fromme/DPA/PA Images
In celebration of one of football’s biggest international tournaments, here is Index’s guide to the free speech Euros. Who comes out on top as the nation with the worst record on free speech?
It’s simple, the worst is ranked first.
We round up the last of the groups today with Group F, which played the deciding matches on Wednesday.
1st Hungary
The recent Group F fixture between Germany and Hungary drew attention to Hungary’s poor record on free speech and censorship, when a protester carrying a pride flag ran on to the pitch. Hungary’s recent law, passed in June 2021, bans “the depiction or promotion of homosexuality to those under 18”. This includes teaching in schools and portrayals on television.
Prime Minister Victor Orbán was elected in 2010 and changed the constitution to take control of independent government institutions and initiated government policies to limit operations of opposition groups, journalists, and universities. According to non-profit Freedom House, the judiciary is unstable and controlled by the Prime Minister’s office, making it unusable in the struggle for free speech in Hungary. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) credit these policies for inspiring other European countries including Poland and Slovenia to institute similar restrictions on journalists.
Hungary’s coronavirus legislation gave the government almost unlimited power to handle the pandemic, a crisis which solidified Hungary as an information police-state where the prime minister can rule by decree without parliamentary oversight. Anti-scaremongering policies, meant to stop anyone “blocking the government’s anti-pandemic effort,” were used by Orbán to intimidate government critics and also temporarily suspended data protection policies. This fits with other incidents of government officials using their authority to suppress stories for their convenience.
Journalists who are caught conducting routine drone investigations in properties without express permission could get up to three years in prison under section 422 of the Hungarian criminal code, which focusses specifically on “illicit” data collection. Two journalists, Gabriella Horn and Balázs Gulyás, were threatened with this when investigating why military vehicles were present on land owned by businessman and friend of Orbán, Lőrinc Mészáros. It is a policy that shows the extent the government will go to, to side with government officials and oligarchs over journalists.
In May, journalist Júlia Halász appealed criminal charges of defamation and illegal recording for her publications after reporting on the harassment she endured while covering Hungarian diplomat, László Szabó.
Many journalists from the media company Magyar Hang reported government officials and their supporters harassing them for opposing Orbán’s reelection in 2018, and since the pandemic legislation, the head of the company, Csaba Lukács told the Committee to Protect Journalists, “reporting has become increasingly dangerous. This new legislation is a clear threat.”
In addition to government oppression, media publications face economic barriers in Hungary. Hungary’s government media council’s decisions have been criticised for being politicised because they prevented the consolidation of independent media companies while encouraging pro-government media outlets. Hungary’s largest independent newspaper closed in 2016, and the government oversaw the merger of hundreds of small media outlets in a major blow to Hungary’s media diversity.
2nd France
France may have placed at the top of the group on Wednesday, but their free speech record is mediocre. Generally, France has an independent judiciary, fair and free elections, and free and independent media that protect free speech rights in France.
In recent years, political turmoil has given France a bad record of violence against journalists. RSF described it as an overall “hostile environment for reporters.” Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim demonstrations in France have been increasingly violent, and while covering them, journalists are often arbitrarily detained with their equipment seized or subjected to teargas grenades, flashbangs, and baton beating. At least two journalists in 2020 were called before French police and claimed to have experienced harassment under questioning. Policies implemented in 2010 make it possible for the government to claim “overriding public interest” to force journalists to break source confidentiality.
Journalists are targets of police violence during the recent large-scale protests over France’s “Global Security Law”, which makes it illegal to “maliciously share” images that may lead to the identification of a police officer. The police response to the Gilets Jaunes – or “Yellow Vests” – movement has been widely criticised for putting bystanders and journalists in harm’s way.
Journalists were the target of the worst terrorist attacks in France. Nine Journalists were killed in 2015 during the Charlie Hebdo shooting which was an attack on the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo. The gunmen identified themselves as members of the Islamist group, Al-Qaeda, and five years later, a second stabbing attack outside Charlie Hebdo is also suspect to have an Islamist terrorist motive.
In April of 2021, French Journalist Nadiya Lazzouni received a death threat with sexist and anti-Muslim slurs and proof that the sender had been watching her. She filed a complaint with the Paris prosecutor’s office but has not heard anything in response as of 15 April. For some journalists in France, both extremists and the police can be a threat to their safety.
3rd Germany
An active effort with constitutional safeguards to avoid repeating the country’s past has made Germany a stable democracy with well-protected civil liberties and political rights. Recent challenges with immigration have given a new rise to right-wing extremism and has created a more volatile environment for journalists. RSF’s 2021 report on Germany states “an independent judiciary ensures a favourable environment for journalists in Germany.” In recent years, the judiciary has been vital in preventing government policies that are harmful to journalists.
Despite the balanced government structure, Germany can still be a dangerous place for journalists. Extremists, mostly from the far right with some leftists, often use journalists as targets for violent attacks, and, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, some politicians encouraged distrust in media outlets to promote populist agendas. In July of 2021, demonstrators protesting the Covid-19 lockdown physically blocked reporter’s cameras with their fists and shoved journalists while threatening them not to report on their protests. In May of 2021, Pro-Palestine demonstrators threw rocks and firecrackers at news crews in Berlin, and police used excessive force to prevent journalists from covering controversial evictions in October of 2020.
The Network Enforcement Act, a controversial law enacted in 2018, was brought in to regulate online hate speech and led to media companies deleting posts that would not have been considered hate speech. A majority of Germans, according to Freedom House, stated they are careful what they post online for fear of repercussions as a result.
Several government policies in response to extremism have been criticised for having unfair restrictions on journalism. In May of June 2021, their federal court ruled a law that was used to force journalists to reveal their sources was unconstitutional. Most recently in June 2021, a new law increased government surveillance and hacking power while removing judicial oversight and protections for Journalists during terrorism investigations, sparking concerns around protecting journalist sources from government retaliation.
4th Portugal
Portugal has a long history of restricting press freedom, but following the Portuguese Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression in 1978, it has grown to be ranked ninth-best in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index of 2021. Despite a vocal minority that criticises the extent to which freedom of expression is allowed, Portugal now has a decent free speech record, but journalists are hindered by the economic downturn’s effect on their media industry. With a near-perfect score from Freedom House, Portugal earned a 96/100 for its effective political system and balanced judiciary Portuguese media outlets struggled with funding during the pandemic, and in response, Prime Minister António Costa advanced what the state planned to pay in government advertising to support the industry. Generally, public broadcasters have and struggle against commercial television outlets, which gives diverse viewpoints but some risk of populism.
Wrongful surveillance of journalists by police has been an issue. In January 2021, police were allegedly surveilling journalists illegally, without a court order, attempting to uncover their sources, and the Lisbon prosecutor’s office was exposed using electronic surveillance on two journalists in an attempt to reveal their sources in 2018. If charged for “breaching judicial secrets”, the two journalists could face up to two years in prison.
Another challenge Portugal has been facing is recent corruption scandals. In September of 2020, 17 people, including three judges, were charged with corruption. Portuguese authorities, complying with the international effort identified those involved and froze their assets, but some concerns remain around the poor resources provided to investigators and the ineffective anti-corruption and whistleblower protection legislation passed in 2019.
Other groups
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E[/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]
25 Jun 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116995″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]It’s a year since I joined the Index family.
I think for all of us the last 12 months have been an emotional rollercoaster. The impact of Covid-19 has been a cloud over our lives; we’ve lost people close to us, we’ve all feared the effect of a virus no one had heard of 18 months ago, we’ve missed our loved ones and we’ve looked on in horror at events both at home and abroad as political leaders have both failed to manage the pandemic and undermined basic human rights under the guise of public health protections.
Repressive leaders have moved against their citizens, we’ve witnessed coups, heard testimony from detention camps and totalitarian regimes have restricted freedoms to an even greater extent throughout the world. And we’ve seen some of the most important vehicles of media freedom undermined – from Rappler to the Apple Daily.
It’s been difficult not to feel impotent. We haven’t been able to travel to stand with those being oppressed. Democratic countries have understandably focused their efforts on their domestic challenges and the institutions we depend on to enforce our shared norms as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been distracted by the global public health emergency. In other words, it has felt that totalitarian leaders have had a free pass to enforce even harsher restrictions on their peoples.
At Index, even despite the pandemic, we’ve strived to shine a spotlight on some of the most egregious attacks on free expression around the globe. In the last 12 months, we’ve supported journalists, writers, artists and academics in over two dozen countries. We’ve published reports on the impact of Covid-19, the current use of SLAPPs to undermine journalists and on online harms. Index has held events exploring the impact of 100 years of CCP rule in China, as well as on the untold stories hidden by Covid-19 and the impact of AI on social media content. And nearly three quarters of a million people have engaged with our work.
We’ve rebranded, redesigned the magazine and have completely changed our annual Freedom of Expression awards and we’ve started the celebrations to mark our 50th birthday. All of this and our team have only met in person three times, as we continue to do our work from home.
I’m so proud of the Index family, they have adapted and continue to push the envelope, making sure that no dictator can think that the world isn’t watching and that activists around the world know that we have their back. There is so much work to do in the months and years ahead in the ongoing battle for free speech, but after working with the team for a year I don’t doubt that we are making a positive difference, highlighting the bravest campaigners in the world and with your help – providing a voice for the persecuted.
[/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]
23 Jun 21 | Europe and Central Asia, Media Freedom, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Sweden fans before their match with Slovakia at Euro 2020. Igor Russak/DPA/PA Images
In celebration of one of football’s biggest international tournaments, here is Index’s guide to the free speech Euros. Who comes out on top as the nation with the worst record on free speech?
It’s simple, the worst is ranked first.
We continue today with Group E, which plays the deciding matches of the group stages today.
1st Poland
Poland is divided. The recent 2020 presidential election was the smallest election victory since the end of communism in 1989. Its record on free speech is also increasingly problematic.
Incumbent president won the race to the Pałac Prezydencki with 51.2% of the vote. He is opposed to reform on LGBTQ+ rights as well as his extremely divisive abortion laws.
In January 2021, Duda’s government imposed a law that allows an abortion only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy. It caused country-wide protests.
Assistant professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Katarzyna Kasia explained in the recent winter issue of Index’s magazine how the restrictions on abortion laws by Duda is indicative on regressive policy that threatens freedom of expression.
“I fear that Duda will continue his work as a strong supporter of the ruling nationalist coalition, obediently signing laws that will limit the power of the judiciary, freedom in academia and media, and the rights of minorities and women,” she said.
Duda has attacked the Poland’s independent media too, and thus the dissenting voices in the country have less of a platform to speak from.
This is due, in part, to the Polish state-owned oil company Orlen purchasing 20 of 24 regional newspapers previously owned by German company Polska Press. During the election there was mistrust around the media due to its German ties and accusations, therefore, that Germany was interfering in Polish politics.
All 24 of the papers have a combined readership of around 17 million people.
It is fairly clear that Orlen purchasing the papers is a deliberate attempt to change the editorial line to support Duda and consolidate support for him and his party, the Law and Justice Party (PiS). Four of the editors were recently fired, despite a court ruling by the Warsaw District Court to suspend the acquisition, pending a review.
Defamation laws also acta as a deterrent for open criticism of party officials. Under Article 212 of the criminal code, defamation is an offence that can be punished by up to two years’ imprisonment. According to Reporters Without Borders, there is “a growing tendency to criminalise defamation”.
Under Duda, the situation is unlikely to improve and there have been other attempts to control the narrative.
There is a bill supposedly designed to protect freedom of speech online and force social media companies to stop blocking content online by fining them, as well as the setting up of a “free speech council”. However, there are concerns that this will have a negative aspect on free speech and encourage disinformation online.
A changing nationalist narrative is worrying and this now extends to Poland’s role in the holocaust.
Two prominent Polish historians were forced to apologise to the niece of a former polish mayor. This, after the two had co-authored a book about Polish complicity in the holocaust.
Previously, the Polish government has attempted to criminalise any suggestion of complicity.
2nd Slovakia
Free speech in Slovakia is currently at the mercy of a hugely significant murder case.
In February 2018, journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancé Martina Kušnírová were shot dead in their home, around 50 kilometres from the capital Bratislava.
Kuciak was heavily involved in investigating both tax fraud relating to the then ruling Slovak party Smer, as well as report examining an Italian mafia organisation. The murders caused country-wide protests.
Prime Minister Robert Fico insisted there would be an investigation, but had shown repeated showings of disdain for the media, generating what non-profit Freedom House describes as a “hateful atmosphere”. He was later forced to resign.
Two of the five original suspects were sentenced, and the retrial of influential businessman Marián Kočner in connection with the murders was ordered on 15 June. The judge ordered the retiral on the basis of “several mistakes” in the original trial that acquitted Kočner.
In a statement, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke of the significance of the retrial.
“We welcome the Slovak Supreme Court’s decision to cancel the acquittals of Marián Kočner and Alena Zsuzsová and hope to see full justice in the killing of journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová.”
“This ruling is a crucial step toward ending impunity in Kuciak’s killing and ensuring that all journalists can work safely and freely in Slovakia.”
Any rightful conviction of Kuciak’s murderers will surely be a positive sign for journalists working in Slovakia and symbolic of a country that holds such murders accountable to the law and deter any acts similar to this in the future.
Other journalists have also received alarming threats. In June 2020, journalist for online news site Aktuality.sk, Peter Sabo, received a pistol cartridge in his mailbox.
Independent media in Slovakia is lacking. Much of the country’s news outlets are owned by a select few and there are also concerns over the impartiality of the public broadcaster Radio and Television of Slovakia after a number of its staff were sacked in 2018.
3rd Spain
The far-right is on the rise in Spain. Populist party VOX have been relatively successful in helping to create an atmosphere where journalists are being targeted.
In 2020, protests against the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and VOX supporters were heard shouting abuse at Spanish reporters.
During the pandemic, controversy arose over the Spanish governments attempt to control the questions given in press conferences by ordering journalists to send questions into the press secretary beforehand. In response, over 400 Spanish journalists were forced to sign an open letter asking the government to reconsider.
The information released by the government during the pandemic was also problematic. Data journalists found that the information released by the governments was overly confusing. As the CPJ reported, one journalist explained why this was a problem: “In Spain, the government sometimes releases data on the number of people who have tested positive on viral tests, while at other times it also includes the number who have tested positive on antibody tests.”
“Other reports contain different figures, such as the number of asymptomatic cases. The constant changes “hinder good analysis and projections,” he said. To complicate things further, national and local data sets often do not add up with national authorities reporting far fewer deaths from the virus than the total number reported by local authorities.”
There have been several notable attacks in the past few years.
Police have been criticised for being heavy-handed during protests. During the demonstration for Catalonian independence in October 19, there were numerous incidents of journalists being targeted by police and protesters.
Police detained El País reporter Albert Garcia after he documented the arrest of a protester, while French journalist Elize Gazendgel reported two separate occasions where she “received blows” from police. Both were wearing the correct, identifiable media accreditation.
Earlier the same month, a particularly appalling incident took place when Laila Jiménez of Telenico TV, was repeatedly pushed and subjected to abuse, as well as having vodka poured over her head.
Despite protests being of vital importance to upholding free speech in a democracy, the Spanish Citizen Security Law (also known as the “gag law”) puts bureaucratic barriers in the way of organising a protest, where authorities must be informed beforehand. Sharing images of police officers that may “endanger” them is also prohibited.
Laws such as this have come under further scrutiny after the case of Spanish rapper Pablo Hasél earlier this year.
Hasél has been jailed for his lyrics, which are crass at best and he has rapped about a “noose for the king”. But Spanish law deems these words illegal.
His arrest sparked widespread protests, particularly among Spanish youths. In response, the government has promised a review in to Spanish free speech laws.
4th Sweden
Sweden’s record on free speech is encouraging and were the first country in the world to adopt a press freedom law, they also have a media ombudsman to deal with ethical issues.
However, one damaging defamation case could set an alarming precedent, concerning the finance publication Realtid.
The case has seen Monaco-based Swedish businessman Svante Kumlin use a vexatious defamation lawsuit against Realid after they began to investigate his company Eco Energy World.’
The lawsuit is also known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (Slapp) and are used by governments or large corporations to saddle a journalist (or anyone publishing allegedly defamatory claims) with long term court cases and legal costs.
The case is awaiting a judgement from to see if it can be tried in England and Wales, where defamation laws are not constitutionally protected.
In December, Index, along with free expression groups RSF, Article 19 and Defence and European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) expressed their concern over the matter.
The letter read “Realtid is being sued by Svante Kumlin, a Swedish businessman, domiciled in Monaco. Realtid had been investigating Kumlin’s group of companies, Eco Energy World (EEW), ahead of an impending stock market launch in Norway, a matter of clear public interest. The investigation began in September when Realtid’s reporters wrote about another stock market launch and discovered off-market sales of shares in EEW.”
While Swedish journalists report in a relatively safe environment, there have been threats towards journalists foreign or exiled reporters in recent years. Turkish journalist Turkish journalist Abdullah Bozkurt was beaten by three men in Stockholm in September 2020 in an incident that was believed to be a threat to exiled Turkish journalists working abroad.
Critic of the authorities in the Chechen region of Russia, Tumso Abdurakhmanov was assaulted by two individuals in his hometown of Gävle, Sweden in February 2020.
Other groups
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D[/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]
23 Jun 21 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116981″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Unless you are a classical Greek scholar or a student of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, it is unlikely that you will have heard of parrhesia. It is an Ancient Greek term meaning “to speak freely”. Its use implied not only the freedom to speak without fear but also an obligation to do so for the common good, even at great personal risk to the speaker. In common parlance, it is the virtue at the heart of whistleblowing.
Whistleblowing is not new. In Ancient Greece, Euripedes used it in his play The Bacchae as a medium to remind and instruct the (male) citizens of Athenian society in beneficial social practice. It reappeared in the Roman Empire in the form of delatores, and in early mediaeval England under qui tam practices, which existed in law until 1951.
It crossed the Atlantic to the USA to be encapsulated in the False Claims Act, otherwise known as the Lincoln Law, which combatted procurement fraud during the American Civil War; and it is the genetic antecedent to the current Public Interest Disclosure Act in the UK, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act in the USA.
Despite its long ancestral line, there is a basic problem with whistleblowing. It demands a competition of one’s loyalties: a fundamental contest between loyalty to values and loyalty to the organisation. Whistleblowing asks the individual to consider between exposing what is wrong and an implied debt of allegiance to country, regiment, company, colleagues, friends and even family.
Whistleblowing also requires raw courage; it asks its exponents to place themselves in great danger.
Whistleblowing asks that the powerful recognise that they need the knowledge that only the vulnerable can give.
In Ancient Athens, the parrhesiastic contract not only offered protection but imposed sanctions against those responsible for the wrongdoing and those responsible for reprisals on the parrhesiastes – the whistleblower. The powerful offered not only freedom to speak openly but also protection for doing so. It is this principle that the Athenians understood
I approach the issue in part from personal experience. I am the whistleblower behind the recent Airbus scandal that started with revealing corruption in government-to-government defence contracts in Saudi Arabia. It has just resulted in a £30million fine for GPT, the UK subsidiary, in addition to being one of the triggers to the deferred prosecution agreements between Airbus Group and the USA, the UK and France, penalties of more than €3.6 billion, and the removal of most of the group’s senior management.
I have found that if we really want to change things for the better then we must find a way to better protect whistleblowers. So I have founded a charity called Parrhesia Inc, which brings together experts in whistleblowing research and policy from around the world in order to focus on the practice, protection and human rights of whistleblowers, by co-ordinating, commissioning and collating research to provide the evidence needed by policymakers to form and reform whistleblowing legislation.
We intend to sow the seeds of the parrhesiastic contract into legislation and all parts of modern society.[/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]
23 Jun 21 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
- Leading experts brand government’s Online Safety Bill “catastrophic” at press conference today
- Members including David Davis MP, Ruth Smeeth and Gavin Millar QC launch the ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’ campaign to scrutinise and push back against the proposed bill
- The proposed bill as it stands will “likely be challenged in the courts” for breaching right to freedom of speech
- New report warns that the “Duty of Care” model outlined in the Bill will see perfectly legal posts from ordinary people blocked online and turns Ofcom into a free speech “super regulator”
- Anger as the new law does NOT punish the abusers who post harmful content online but instead outsources internet policing to Silicon Valley
London, UK – A coalition of experts including David Davis MP, Index on Censorship chief executive Ruth Smeeth, and Gavin Millar QC savaged the government’s proposed Online Safety Bill today, branding it “catastrophic” for freedom of speech as they launched the ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’ campaign to scrutinise and push back against the bill.
The emergency session was called by the group of leading experts to warn the public that the bill will create two tiers of free speech online: free speech for journalists and politicians, and censorship for ordinary citizens.
A new report from Index On Censorship launched at the conference warns that the bill’s introduction of the “Duty of Care model” which comes from Health and Safety legislation is overly simplistic. The new rule would force tech platforms to delete posts that are legal under laws passed by Parliament but considered “harmful”. The bill does not define what is and is not “harmful”, the group says this will result in many perfectly legal posts from ordinary people being banned online. The bill effectively outsources internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley.
Legal expert Gavin Millar QC deems the Duty of Care framework will enable vast amounts of speech online to be deleted – and suggests it will likely be challenged in the courts.
While the bill’s aim of ensuring platforms remove illegal images of child sexual abuse, terrorist material and content which incites racial hatred and violence from screens is welcomed by the group, its members today criticised the government’s bill for actually making it harder for law enforcement to properly hold online abusers accountable. The bill forces platforms to delete valuable evidence before the victims of targeted harassment or threats to kill can see the criminal content and ensure it is reported to the police.
In its current form, the legislation protects trolls, making them feel safer to abuse online because the platforms are punished for hosting the harmful content as opposed to the people who create it. Members of the coalition are demanding the government puts criminals behind bars rather than simply deleting their posts. The group also raises concerns about the bill potentially resulting in an increase in popularity of the ‘dark web’, which the Online Safety Bill does not cover.
The Index on Censorship report criticises the role of Ofcom as the final adjudicator as highly problematic and could lead to the over-censorship of free speech by the Silicon Valley giants as they attempt to avoid huge fines. As the report notes, since the abolition of press licensing in 1695, people in England have been free to publish ideas without direct government interference. By turning Ofcom into a “super regulator” of free speech, the government is imposing a state regulator over the written word for the first time in over 300 years. In place of a formal court process to deal with potentially illegal publication, instead Ofcom will be given new powers in the Online Safety Bill to fine technology companies for allowing content to be posted that is perfectly legal, but thought to be “harmful” by Ofcom. The definition of “harmful” is open to interpretation and the group is concerned this could be used to regulate ideas that people in the UK should be free to express. The fines that Ofcom will be able to levy will be eye-watering, with the potential fines as high as 10% of turnover. The report by Index on Censorship notes there will be a commercial incentive to over-censor, to remove content once deemed as perfectly acceptable, as to defend free speech online could cause significant financial risk.
The group have expressed fears that black and ethnic minority Britons will be censored by Artificial Intelligence that doesn’t understand the nuances of human language – especially when it comes to irony loving Brits. For example a 2019 study by Washington University found that tweets from African-American users were two times more likely to be labeled as offensive than tweets from other users.
Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive at Index on Censorship states:
“The Government’s bill is catastrophic for freedom of speech. It’s plan to force tech platforms to delete “harmful” content or face big fines will lead to many legal posts being deleted. At Index on Censorship we work with people across the globe who are being censored by oppressive regimes. It might not be the UK Government’s intention but this bill sets a worrying international precedent. Dictators around the world will be taking notes. Also as someone who has experienced online abuse, I am dismayed that the bill would force platforms to delete offending comments. These comments are vital evidence for law enforcement and will make it harder for the authorities to catch people who actually break the law online.”
Rt Hon David Davis MP states:
“The Online Safety Bill is a Censor’s Charter. Lobby groups will be able to push social networks to take down content they view as not politically correct, even though the content is legal. The idea we should force Silicon Valley companies to police Briton’s speech online, seems out of Orwell’s 1984, and is not what our voters expect of us.”
Gavin Millar QC states:
“The bill proposed by the government is likely to lead to perfectly legal speech being removed from the internet and it seems inevitable that this will be challenged in the courts.
The scale of the task given to platforms, and the vagueness of wording in the legislation will force broad “technical” solutions to content moderation – such as overly restrictive algorithms which will make decisions without context, nuance and an understanding of our laws and culture. This could lead to large quantities of content being blocked wrongly.
Judgments that should be reserved for UK prosecutors and the courts will be outsourced to global tech companies.
As someone who has undertaken many free speech missions for international organisations to countries with repressive free speech regimes such as China, Turkey, Azerbaijan there is a real risk that this legislation, if passed, will be used to justify repressive measures aimed at closing down free speech on the internet in these countries.”
Jim Killock, Chief Executive at Open Rights Group states:
“Outsourcing decision making around free speech to Silicon Valley and taking away this responsibility from the UK’s Parliament and Courts would be a huge mistake. The threat of colossal fines or even jail time for Directors will cause tech platforms to overreact, prompting them to remove content that is perfectly legal. Worse still, politicians and journalists are opted out of the law, creating an unhealthy two-tier system online.”
-ENDS-
Notes to Editors
For more information please contact:
[email protected]
Or [email protected] / 07596 177849
About ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’
The ‘Legal to Say. Legal to Type.’ campaign is calling on the government to table amendments and ensure the internet is kept “free, open and secure”. The assembly consists of notable experts including:
- Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive at Index on Censorship
- Jim Killock, Chief Executive at Open Rights Group
- David Davis MP, Member of Parliament for Haltemprice and Howden
- Gavin Millar QC, Barrister at Matrix Chambers
- Graham Smith, Of Counsel, Bird & Bird LLP
- Penelope Gibbs, Founder and Chief Executive, Transform Justice
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Jun 21 | Czech Republic, Europe and Central Asia, Media Freedom, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
England fans during Euro 2020. Kieran Cleeves/PA Wire/PA Images
In celebration of one of football’s biggest international tournaments, here is Index’s guide to the free speech Euros. Who comes out on top as the nation with the worst record on free speech?
It’s simple, the worst is ranked first.
We continue today with Group D, which plays the deciding matches of the group stages today.
1st Czech Republic
Thomas Schick’s stunner against Scotland may prove a useful distraction, but praising the Czech Republic’s record on freedom of expression is also something of a long shot.
One of their most revered figures, Václav Havel was a dissident writer and playwright turned president.
Grievances over free speech in the country exist with the smearing of journalists, as well as the influence of foreign powers within universities.
Chinese influence in western countries is growing and it is well known that the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are trying to change the narrative both in their own state and abroad. It means that the cornerstones of free speech in any country, universities and academic freedom, are the first ports of call.
They do so either through the funding of projects or by setting up what is known as a “Confucius Institute”. These are in place, in theory, to build bridges between universities around the world and China, but are much criticised due to accusations of attempts to censor the teaching of Chinese ideals in a certain way. There are currently two Confucius Institutes in the Czech Republic.
Associate editor Sally Gimson noted one particular case in the latest edition of the magazine: “In the Czech Republic, the head of the King Charles University’s Centre for Security Policy was sacked after the media revealed he billed the Chinese embassy (as well as the university) to run conferences on China.”
The relationship between the current government and journalists is frayed, with President Miloš Zeman sewing seeds of Trump-like distrust of the media among his people. Zeman’s government has also cracked down on independent media. For example, no press accreditation has been given to Forum 24 since 2020, who were critical of Prime Minister Andrej Babiš.
In 2018, Zeman was reported to have joked about the killing of journalists after the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, saying “I love journalists, that’s why I may organise a special banquet for them this evening at the Saudi embassy.”
Only the year before Zeman was pictured holding a mock rifle at a press conference, with an inscription that read “for journalists” written on the barrel. Zeman also insisted he was joking when he said to Russian president Vladimir Putin that journalists “should be liquidated”.
2nd Croatia
The most notable case in Croatia currently, from the point of few of foreign media, is that of the whistleblower Jonathan Taylor.
Taylor is a former lawyer working for the Monaco-based Dutch oil company SBM Offshore and revealed allegations of corruption in 2013. Bribes were exchanged in return for lucrative contracts.
He faces extradition to Monaco to be “interrogated”, from Croatia, where he has been detained since July 2020 after visiting on a family holiday.
In May, the Supreme Court of Croatia issued a judgement confirming the extradition. 40 NGOs, legal experts and campaigners signed an open letter to Croatian justice minister Ivan Malenica for the extradition to be stopped, with whom the decision now rests.
His treatment by the Croatian authorities has been poor. When Taylor raised concerns over his mental health with British diplomats, he was forcibly detained and forced to spend the night in a psychiatric hospital, where he was forcibly injected.
There is a history of journalists being attacked in Croatia and what non-profit Freedom House describes as “an atmosphere of self-censorship”.
In a polarised atmosphere, in which Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković accused the media of “being paid to vilify a political camp”, attacks come easily. In December 2020, two men threatened to kill media workers for coverage of a wedding, sending threats to newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija and the Zadarski.hr website.
Though the media is considered to be highly polarised and severely reduced due to cut backs that arose because of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is some hope for journalists and media in the country.
As the Croatia Journalists’ Association (HND) reported, nearly 1, 000 people protested in support of what was deemed to be by them as the unfair dismissal of the journalists Danijela Bašić Palković, Borka Petrović, and Zoran Angeleski from Croatian daily newspaper Glas Istre earlier this month, due to disagreeing with editorial policy.
3rd Scotland
Not exactly the tournament favourites, their head-to-head with England on the pitch proved to be close. Off the pitch, the two have similar records.
Despite close ties, criminal justice legislation is more of a devolved matter, but the recent Scottish Hate Crime Bill is cause for concern and its implementation just edges Scotland out over their friends a little further south.
The law was introduced, and passed in March 2021, with the intention of cracking down on hate speech. However, it was derided from the start by free speech groups who believe it would have a chilling effect on free speech. Perhaps most significantly, there is a threshold now in Scottish law that exists for charging people for “stirring up hatred”, but intent must be shown. Incitement in this regard is difficult to prove.
The original bill also spoke of a need to protect people from hate speech within their own homes. In The Times in November 2020, Ruth Smeeth said: “Common sense seems to have gone out of the window with regards to the Scottish hate crime bill. Let’s be clear, hate speech is appalling and if it’s inciting violence and illegal behaviour it should be banned. But this is now trying to regulate what people say to each other over dinner — it’s absurd.”
Despite acknowledgement of concerns regarding the threshold for what is accepted to be hate speech, amendments to the law did not go far enough.
In February, Index joined a letter addressed to Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) signed by NGO’s academics and politicians expressing concerns over the bill.
It read, “When the bill was published last year, the police, the legal profession, academics, civil liberties groups and others cautioned that the offences could catch legitimate debate on a range of issues. The vague wording of the offences and a lack of adequate free speech protections could, they warned, place a chill on free expression in the arts, the media and the public square when it comes to discussions about contentious issues such as religion and trans rights.”
As well as this, during the Covid-19 pandemic and according to the Press and Journal, Scotland became the “first country in the world” to implement restrictions to freedom of information (FOI) access to journalists and keen public citizens.
FOI’s are a vital tool for journalists receiving data that is in the public interest to report, particularly in times of crisis, such as in a pandemic.
The plans came into effect as a result of emergency votes put through the Scottish Parliament by MSPs, arguing that the changes were necessary to ease the burden on public bodies.
4th England
The atmosphere around free speech and the media in the UK is deteriorating and there have been several alarming incidents in the past few years.
Attitudes around the media have worsened while populist politics has grown. Frequently, there have been arguments surrounding free speech and the so-called “culture war” where people have claimed they are being denied a platform to speak. In response, several government figures have responded with actions defending free speech.
Education secretary Gavin Williamson has put forward proposals to protect free speech on academic campuses, by making universities liable for any breaches of free speech.
However, there are several other bills that are raising alarm.
Protests are integral to upholding democracy, but the proposed Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill aims to impose a start and finish time on protests and set noise limits on them. Not accounting for one of the basic principles of protests, that they are intentionally (and peacefully) disruptive. Those who partake in the desecration of memorials could receive up to ten years in prison. Essentially, the bill lowers the threshold for the police to intervene heavily with protests to break them up, even after accusations of heavy-handedness regarding recent protests, such as the Sarah Everard vigil in March 2021.
Police heavy handedness is of genuine concern. In February, photographer Andy Aitchison was arrested and his fingerprints taken after working at a protest outside the refugee camp at Napier Barracks, in Kent.
Index’s CEO Ruth Smeeth said at the time: “The British Government talks a good game on media freedom. They are launching a National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists. They are proposing legislation to protect free speech on campus. They have spoken out about Putin’s show trial of Navalny. Of Lukashenko’s repressive regime. Of the military coup in Myanmar. But what credibility do they have if they are enabling British journalists to be arrested on UK soil – for doing their job?”
Further problematic legislation lies with the proposed Online Safety Bill (also known as ‘online harms’), currently in its white paper stage.
Due to particular language included in the bill, namely “legal but harmful”, there would be inconsistency between what is illegal online, versus what would be legal offline and thus a lack of clarity in the law regarding free speech.
England (and Wales) is very much a country that feels as though it is standing on the precipice when it comes to freedom of expression. There is hope that problematic bills such as these will be reconsidered.
Other groups
Group A
Group B
Group C[/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]
22 Jun 21 | China, Hong Kong, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116952″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Ten months after the arrest of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and a massive raid at the group’s headquarters in August last year, the Hong Kong Police’s national security department launched a bigger strike against the Apple Daily, the group’s major publication, last Thursday (17 June).
They were alleged of colluding with foreign forces, one of the crimes under the national security law (NSL).
It marks the beginning of the end of the beleaguered newspaper founded by the controversial businessman in 1995. Hit by a government freeze on its bank accounts, the Next Digital’s board of directors said after an emergency meeting on Monday the newspaper will cease operation on Saturday unless the Government releases assets frozen.
Staff were allowed to leave immediately without giving prior notice. As this article went to press, its online operation was largely shut down.
The imminent demise of the media group, inaugurated with the launching of its flagship newspaper Apple Daily in 1995, will deal a body blow to the city’s press freedom.
More importantly, it signifies the deplorable failure of the Chinese Communist Party in honouring its promises to Hong Kong people and the world under the “one country, two systems” policy.
The troubled daily plunged into a deeper crisis after the Government launched the second, now fatal, strike on Thursday. Five top executives and editors were arrested. They were alleged of colluding with foreign forces by the publication of dozens of articles on their newspaper and online platform. Details of the articles have not been revealed.
On the same day, the Police’s national security department sent more than 500 officers to raid the newspaper’s headquarters. They took away more than 40 computers from the local news section.Security minister John Lee warned citizens and staff to “cut ties with these criminals,” referring to the newspaper.
The newspaper’s publisher, Cheung Kim-hung, and chief editor Ryan Law, were formally charged on Saturday. Their bail request was denied.
The other three executives were released on bail late Friday. Deputy publisher Chan Pui-man, who is one of them, has vowed to keep publishing.
Beginning in the early hours of Friday, readers snapped up copies of the newspaper to lend their support – and to say no to the authoritarian rule of the Government.
Half a million copies were sold like hot cakes. It was a scene reminiscent of the mass-buying in August following the arrest of Lai and the raid.
This “people power” will not be able to rescue the newspaper against the enormous power given to the national security organ under a law with almost zero checks and balances – even by the judiciary.
Invoking the NSL to take journalists to court for the first time, the case stoked fear of penalising journalists for “speech crime”, which is not uncommon in Communist-ruled China, but is rare in Hong Kong.
The confiscation of journalistic materials during the latest raid also set a damaging precedent. It will seriously shake public confidence in the protection of sources of information by reporters. Citizens will become more reluctant in talking to journalists, not to mention revealing sensitive information.
When the provisions of the NSL were announced about one year ago, journalists voiced their concerns about the profound ramifications on press freedom. That Lai and the Apple Daily have long been seen as a hostile force by the Government and Beijing is an open secret.
Ignited by an extradition bill in 2019, the prolonged months-long protest that was followed by foreign sanctions against top officials in the two governments has prompted the party leadership under Xi Jinping to harden their strategy towards dissenting voices in Hong Kong.
First came the NSL. Then a revamp of the election system. Democrats were arrested and prosecuted en masse. Dozens of them are either in jail after being convicted of other charges or are being held in custody.
On the media front, it is hardly surprising the government-run Radio Television Hong Kong and the Apple Daily have emerged as the immediate targets of a clampdown on press freedom.
The swiftness and ruthlessness of the use of harsh laws and powers have caught many by surprise.
Government officials have sought to allay fears among journalists by saying those who are engaged in “normal journalist work” have nothing to fear.
Speaking at a weekly press briefing on Tuesday, chief executive Carrie Lam rejected criticism that the move was a suppression of press freedom, but ducked the question “what is normal journalist work?”
“I think you are in a better position to answer that question,” she told reporters.
With the NSL taking effect nearly one year ago on 30 June 2020, Lam gave a clear message that they will not soften their approach in upholding national security, at least in the foreseeable future. “We won’t let this law be treated as if it doesn’t exist.”
With Apple Daily closing down, journalists have begun to ask “who’s next?”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
