26 Feb 21 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116310″ img_size=”large”][vc_column_text]Over the past two years, there have been massive citizen-led protests in Hong Kong, Thailand, Russia, and Belarus — as well as major acts of repression by their governments. Join us for a roundtable discussion that will zoom into these four countries, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two pairs of locales: Hong Kong and Thailand, and Russia and Belarus.
Our panel of experts include Natalya Chernyshova, Senior Lecturer in Modern History at the University of Winchester who will discuss Belarus; Nina Khrushcheva, Professor in the Julien J. Studley Graduate Programs of International Affairs at The New School who will discuss Russia; Claudio Sopranzetti, Assistant Professor in Anthropology at Central European University who will discuss Thailand; and Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Chancellor’s Professor of History, UC Irvine, who will discuss Hong Kong. The conversation will be led by Maria Repnikova, Assistant Professor in Global Communication at Georgia State University, and will explore the possibilities of these citizen-led protests, and whether there have been — or will be — any major changes in government leadership, culture, or international relations within the four locations.
This event is programmed in partnership with the UCI Forum for the Academy and the Public, Wende Museum, Central European University Democracy Institute and the Orange County World Affairs Council.
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]
25 Feb 21 | Malta, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Daphne Caruana Galizia
A change of plea to guilty in a Maltese court this week by a man accused of being one of three hitmen who murdered investigative reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017 has brought hopes that her family may be one step closer to getting both answers about her assassination and justice.
On 16 October 2017, Caruana Galizia was assassinated by the triggering of an explosive device planted under her car seat outside her home in Bidnija, Malta. Her body was found by her son Matthew who said at the time, “I looked down and there were my mother’s body parts all around me”.
Caruana Galizia had been active for over thirty years as a journalist in the country and broke many exclusive stories around corruption on her Running Commentary blog, which remains on the web today as a testament to her tireless work.
Her work exposed corruption among politicians and business people in the country and their links with criminals outside the country’s borders which made her a target.
At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia had more than 40 lawsuits pending against her, which her son Matthew said were like a “never-ending type of torture” to his mother and which her sister, Corinne Vella, told Index the family were still facing even after her murder.
Since her death, there has been a renewed focus on Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public particiption) in Europe, in which Index on Censorship is playing a key role.
On Tuesday, Vincent Muscat, also known as Il Koħħu, changed his plea to guilty as he faced Judge Edwina Grima. Muscat, who had been accused of being one of the three hitmen who had conspired to kill Caruana Galizia, had asked for a presidential pardon two years ago but is now understood to have reached a deal with prosecutors to provide information about the murder.
Malta’s Newsbook has this week published details of the pardon, which required him to reveal the full story from being contracted to the murder itself, the identities of who planned the murder and who actually carried it out.
Muscat has now been given a 15-year sentence but has already spent three years in jail and could be out in seven years with remission.
The case against the other two alleged hitmen – brothers George and Alfred Degiorgio, known as “Ic-Ciniz” or the Chinese, and “Il-Fulu”, the Bean – will continue as a separate case.
The family’s lawyer, Jason Azzopardi, made a statement to the court following Muscat’s change of plea.
“A person who has admitted his involvement in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia has denied her her right to life and has denied her her right to enjoy her family, including her grandchildren who were born after she was killed,” the lawyer said.
“The macabre murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia was intentional and should have been prevented. The victim has paid with her life and her family is suffering the loss of their loved one.
“I have said all this because if Daphne Caruana Galizia’s family were to respond to this admission on the basis of emotion alone, it is obvious what their response would be.
“However, in the circumstances, and given that they were informed by the Attorney General about the process in this case, the family expresses the hope that this step will begin to lead to full justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia.”
On Wednesday, the day after the plea change, two men – Robert Agius, and Jamie Vella – were arrested on suspicion of supplying the bomb and complicity in the murder of Caruana Galizia, based on information believed to have been provided by Muscat as part of his pardon.
Malta’s prime minister Robert Abela said that the charges meant that there is evidence of the “rule of law in Malta”. However, Abela would not rule out political involvement in the journalist’s murder.
Bernard Grech, leader of the opposition Maltese Nationalist party, said of the news: “Had our institutions not been hijacked by those seeking to protect themselves, Daphne Caruana Galizia would still be alive. We have gotten to this point thanks to the perseverance of those who persisted in pursuing justice no matter what.”
Reacting to Abela’s comments, Daphne’s son Andrew said, ”To move forward a country first needs to publicly acknowledge its failures. There is no shame in this. Only the promise of hope that we could one day be a better country. We’ve sacrificed too much to be robbed of this opportunity.”
- Index spoke to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s sister Corinne Vella in October about their childhood and Daphne’s desire to be a writer
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”18781″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
24 Feb 21 | Lebanon, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116296″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]On 4 February, the Lebanese activist, political commentator and publisher Lokman Slim was shot dead in his car.
Before his murder, Slim already suspected that his days were numbered and told family members that should anything happen to him, the Shia militant group Hezbollah – of which he had been an outspoken critic – would likely be behind it.
“For the first time in years, after verbal and many physical attacks on people who oppose the politics of Hezbollah, a well-known personality [Slim] was assassinated in their areas with many leads that allow many to boldly question their involvement in his murder,” said Lebanese journalist Luna Safwan.
Safwan said that his assassination followed years of threats and attempts to drive him away from his house which is located inside the Hezbollah stronghold in Dahiye.
“[There were] continuous campaigns against him, trying to somehow shape his view as a sympathiser with violence against Hezbollah supporters or the Shia community in Lebanon,” she said. “The way I see it, the aim was not only to assassinate him physically, but to also tarnish his reputation even after his death.”
Safwan herself has also been targeted. She tweeted criticism of Hezbollah in October and received a high volume of online abuse, including several death threats, after the tweet was featured on an Israeli news channel.
Safwan believes attacks on journalists and other critics of Hezbollah have increased in recent years.
“Journalists, activists and even protestors and people from inside the Shia community have started questioning Hezbollah’s politics in the region, and how much Hezbollah is prioritising Lebanon.”
Last December, the family of Maryam Seif Eddine, a strong critic of Hezbollah, was attacked and issued with death threats.
The same month, Sawt Beirut International reporter Rabih Chantaf and cameraman Mahmoud Al-Sayyed were attacked while covering a fire in the Lebanese capital.
Arab News reported that as the pair were filming firemen attending the blaze, they were approached by people in plain clothes and forcibly stopped from filming. They were beaten as they fled down the building’s stairs. Sawt Beirut blamed the incident on Hezbollah.
In January, Layal Alekthiar, a journalist for US-backed Alhurra News channel, was threatened after a Twitter post that questioned the unveiling of a statue to the late Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, killed by US forces last year. Iran is a backer of Hezbollah.
Another journalist working in Lebanon – who wished to remain anonymous due to the current attitude towards reporters – told Index that journalists in the country “all feel at risk”.
“The assassination of Slim was a reminder of that,” they said.
Journalists are increasingly self-censoring as a result.
The journalist said, “I have been covering [Lebanon’s] economic crisis, so I don’t feel personally at risk, even though I noticed that my sources are getting increasingly scared,” they said. “If I were to be given a topic related to Hezbollah I would be extra careful. You just have to see the number of threats my colleagues receive when they express an anti-Hezbollah opinion on social media.”
Independent Lebanese journalist Zahra Hankir, who wrote in the winter issue of Index on Censorship magazine and is based between London and Lebanon, said reporters are reeling from recent events and are “galvanised” by the state in which Lebanon finds itself in, particularly following the deadly explosion in August that killed more than 200 people and injured thousands.
“Despite Lebanon being hailed for decades as more free for journalists than its regional counterparts, reporters, political analysts and commentators in the country are increasingly facing threats and harassment in their work, particularly women,” she said.
“Lebanon’s media landscape has always had ‘red lines’ that journalists inherently understood could not be crossed without reprisals – among them, criticism of Hezbollah.”
“Reporters and commentators have been galvanized by recent events, given the dire state of the country, and as such have often been more brazen in their reporting. In some cases, they have paid dearly for their bravery.”
The explosion exposed, among other things, wide-scale corruption in the country. But the lack of accountability in Lebanon means people are still at risk and not just from Hezbollah.
With Hezbollah increasingly criticised for its position in Lebanon and the government unwilling to truly crack down on corruptive practices, journalists are constantly looking over their shoulders.
Safwan said: “Laws in Lebanon have flaws and don’t offer any real protection to journalists, especially when we are subjected to online hate campaigns. There should be a clear process that allows us to immediately pursue legal action even if against ‘unknown entities’.
She said, “In my opinion the ministry of information and syndicate of journalism are not paying attention to what journalists really need.”
Additional reporting by Mark Frary[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
19 Feb 21 | China, Hong Kong, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116283″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has condemned the removal today of the director of broadcasting of Radio Television Hong Kong from his post and his replacement with a civil servant approved by the Hong Kong Government.
Veteran journalist Leung Ka-wing has been in the post since 2015 and his contract was due to come to an end in August this year, although his tenure had already been extended by three years in 2018.
The Hong Kong government announced today that he would leave his post immediately, with civil servant Patrick Li Pak-chuen taking over on 1 March. Li has served as deputy secretary for home affairs since 2017 and has previously worked in the Security Bureau.
Commenting on the appointment, the Secretary for the Civil Service, Patrick Nip, said, “Li is a seasoned administrative officer with proven leadership and management skills. I believe that he will continue to serve the community with professionalism and dedication in his new capacity, and ably lead the Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) to meet the challenges ahead.”
In its statement, the Government made a clear point of Li’s role at the broadcaster. “As Director of Broadcasting, Li will ensure that RTHK fully abides by the charter of RTHK,” it said.
Index’ s CEO Ruth Smeeth said, “Hong Kong has been a bastion of media freedom for decades. This chilling statement from the Chinese Government removing the Director of HKTV is another step towards a truly authoritarian regime in Hong Kong. We stand in solidarity with the people of Hong Kong and those journalists are trying to cling on to their media freedom which is so precious.”
The news comes in the wake of a tit-for-tat battle been China and the UK over broadcast rights.
On 4 February, the UK’s broadcasting regulator Ofcom rescinded the licence of China Global Television Network (CGTN), an international English-language satellite news channel, following an investigation into who held editorial control for CGTN’s output.
A spokesperson said, “Our investigation showed that the licence for CGTN is held by an entity which has no editorial control over its programmes. We are unable to approve the application to transfer the licence to China Global Television Network Corporation because it is ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, which is not permitted under UK broadcasting law.”
A week later, the Chinese government banned the broadcasting of BBC World News in the country. China’s National Radio and Television Administration said the BBC’s broadcasts were not “truthful and fair” and it caused harm to China’s national interests.
RTHK also announced it would stop relaying the BBC’s World Service radio.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”40980″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
19 Feb 21 | Belarus, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116024″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Our daily team meetings at Index are an opportunity to touch base, to make sure that everyone is coping in the current lockdown and to discuss the latest aggressions by too many authoritarian leaders. Unfortunately the last of these is never short and sweet.
Where is today’s misery? What has Lukashenko done now? What’s the latest in Hong Kong? What the hell happened in Catalonia? Has anything changed in Kashmir? Where are we with Myanmar?
And it goes on, every day a new atrocity: a new attack on media freedom, another arrest of an artist or an activist, another family devastated, another person hurt.
It would be too easy for Index to become a grievance sheet – just listing country after country and each infringement on freedoms. But behind each repressive action there is a person, a family, a story and we owe it to them to make sure the world knows their names, understands what they are trying to do and of course know how outrageous the treatment is that they are being subjected too.
But sometimes our job is much harder. Sometimes it is one of our correspondents who has been arrested, someone that we know well. And sometimes it is a member of the Index family that is suffering for their commitment to our collective human rights. Every person we cover is special but when it’s someone you’ve been to the pub with it’s just that little bit harder.
Last month I wrote about Andrei Aliaksandrau, a former member of our team. Today marks 39 days since his arrest and incarceration in Belarus. Andrei is one of 255 political prisoners imprisoned by Lukashekno’s regime (as of today) since the crackdown on civil society began 193 days ago. The world has condemned his arrest but he remains in a Belarusian jail.
This simply isn’t good enough. We need action. We need Andrei home. We need the other 254 human rights activists released. We need media freedoms reinstated in Belarus and we need a guarantee that the right to peacefully protest will be protected.
We need action.
This week has seen Lukashenko’s regime double down on their critics. We’ve seen human rights organisations raided across Belarus. The offices of the Belarusian Association of Journalists has been raided. Human rights activists and journalists have had their homes searched by police. This is happening in Europe, in 2021 and the world is simply too distracted to act.
We need to stand in solidarity with the people of Belarus.
You can sign up to support the campaign for Andrei’s release here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
17 Feb 21 | Academic Freedom, Academic Freedom Statements, News and features, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116270″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship was founded by writers and scholars, nearly half a century ago, in order to provide a bulwark against censorship. One of our founders, Stephen Spender, stated on our launch that: “The writers and scholars whom one relies on to support (Index) would obviously include those at universities. For the universities represent the developing international consciousness which depends so much on the free interchange of people, and of ideas.”
Which is why we are so intrigued by the Government’s publication of a policy paper outlining their plans to protect free speech and academic freedom on campus in England. Index supports all efforts to protect academic freedom and will work with all stakeholders to protect this core right and while there is much to be applauded in the sentiments outlined, the devil, as always, is in the detail.
The policy paper does touch on one of the most dangerous threats to our collective academic freedom but it doesn’t suggest any policy prescriptions to address the influence of hostile nations in both limiting speech on campus and affecting the curriculum. In recent days, we have seen reports of academics being investigated for breaching national security laws because of their dealings with China. There have been ongoing reports of interference on campus both in terms of the curriculum and the work of student societies. This is where we need a strong government intervention – otherwise these hostile acts will continue unabated.
The Government has outlined seven specific policy proposals ranging from changing the onus on Higher Education providers to be proactive in their defence of academic freedom rather than passive, to the appointment of a Free Speech and Academic Freedom Champion who while working under the auspices of the Office for Students and will have the authority to act as an Ombudsman for complaints related to academic freedom.
Fundamentally the majority of these proposals are actually tweaks to the current legislative framework which already applies to English Universities, with the exception of the new appointment of a Free Speech Champion. In a positive light this could therefore be seen as an effort to simplify the current legal framework in order for people to better understand their rights and therefore they will feel empowered to demand genuine academic freedom.
However, our fear is that this isn’t the case. The Government have recognised that there is a problem on campus which is having a chilling effect in specific specialisms and leading to intolerance rather than debate at some of our academic institutions. This is however a cultural problem and you simply can’t legislate for cultural change – you need the carrot as well as the stick and this is missing from the policy paper.
It is also somewhat Orwellian to appoint a government Champion to determine what is and what is not free speech.
Fundamentally, Index welcomes this renewed commitment to academic freedom and will work with all stakeholders to try and ensure this works – even the new Free Speech Champion… We just wonder if the Government may have been wiser to focus its efforts on ensuring that external pressures from hostile governments were being robustly resisted.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Feb 21 | Belarus, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116263″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship strongly condemns the politically motivated police raids and detentions that have been carried out against dozens of human rights defenders and journalists across Belarus this morning. The offices of the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ) and the Human Rights Centre “Viasna” were among those raided by the authorities.
“We are once again appalled at the actions of the Belarusian authorities,” said Jessica Ní Mhainín, senior policy research and advocacy officer at Index on Censorship. “We express our solidarity with our colleagues in Belarus, who should be celebrated for their courageous and relentless work – not facing such repression.”
Since fraudulent elections last August, which triggered mass opposition protests and crackdowns by the regime, the work of journalists and human rights defenders in Belarus has been more important than ever. They have worked tirelessly to document and publish the blatant human rights violations being carried out by the Belarusian authorities, and have kept up-to-date lists of unjustly imprisoned journalists and political prisoners. As of 16 February, there are 256 political prisoners in Belarus.
“The regime is trying to kill the opposition movement by intimidating human rights defenders and journalists into silence. We cannot allow this to happen. We urge the international community to immediately and unreservedly condemn the actions of authorities and to ensure that civil society in Belarus are supported to continue to carry out their vital work,” Ní Mhainín said.
Index calls for the immediate release of all human rights defenders and journalists who remain in detention in Belarus, including our former colleague Andrei Aliaksandrau, who has now been in detention for 36 days.
Please sign the petition calling on the Belarusian authorities to free Andrei Aliaksandrau and his girlfriend Irina Zlobina.
[/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]
16 Feb 21 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116256″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]I can think of few public figures I hold in greater contempt than Ken Loach. Mr Loach may be an esteemed film maker but I regard his politics as those of the sewer. His involvement in the cancelled original production of Perdition, the notoriously antisemitic play, ought to have led all decent people to shun him. Far from that happening, however, he has been widely feted and his career has soared. And yet not only do his views remain the same, he misses few opportunities to promote them.
In short, I loathe the man and find him deeply offensive.
All of which is true, but all of which should be irrelevant to anyone but me and those who are interested in my views of Mr Loach. There are many other public figures whose views I find deeply offensive. To which you rightly respond: Who cares?
Except people do care. Not about my specific response, but about the offence Mr Loach generates among many of my fellow Jews. And that is an issue.
Earlier this month, a brouhaha arose over a decision by students at St Peter’s College, Oxford, to invite Mr Loach to speak (as it happens, about his films rather than, er, Jews). Would I have invited him? I think you know the answer to that. But the invitation was issued, Mr Loach accepted, and we are where we are.
Vile as I – and, let’s be clear, many others – may find him to be, if a group of Oxford students wish to hear from Ken Loach, so be it. He has broken no laws when speaking and has as much right to put forward his views – and, of course, to talk about his films to a group of people interested in hearing from him about them – as anyone else.
Ordinarily, that would have been the end of the matter. But when the event was made public, the Board of Deputies of British Jews weighed in, demanding that the invitation be withdrawn. They argued – correctly – that many Jews find Mr Loach’s views deeply offensive. But, bizarrely and ludicrously, they concluded from this that he should therefore have been banned from speaking.
The sheer idiocy of this position takes some grappling with. For most of my time as editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a recurring story has been how representatives of Israel face violence and intimidation on campus to stop them speaking. In other words, one group of people believe that the offence they take at hearing a certain view entitles them to silence that view. The Board of Deputies has rightly criticised such attempts.
Do they really not see the contradiction? For Jewish students, the greatest campus battle at the moment is the right to be heard. All too often they are shouted down and attacked by anti-Israel activists. The Board of Deputies’ position is that if someone is regarded as offensive by enough people, they should be denied the opportunity to speak. Presumably anywhere, always. If Mr Loach is to be denied the chance to speak at St Peter’s, is he also to be barred from promoting his films? Or from making films?
As one can see, the whole thing unravels with a moment’s thought – as well as being so obviously counter-productive. It will not be long before the next attempt to silence an Israeli speaker, this time doubtless claiming to be based on the Board of Deputies’ own logic, that their presence is offensive to many people.
As readers of this site well know, free speech issues can be complicated. But not always. Sometimes the issue is obvious. I loathe Ken Loach. But I defend his right to speak.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
12 Feb 21 | Burma, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116235″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Journalists are facing increasingly difficult circumstances in reporting what is happening as Myanmar’s new regime attempts to tighten its grip on the power it took from a democratically elected government at the start of the month.
Myo Min Htike, former secretary of the Myanmar Journalist Association, has told Index that journalists are being targeted across the country, particularly if they have covered protests against the coup.
In Mandalay, two journalists were pursued by special branch after they had covered a pro-democracy demonstration, he said.
The editor of an online publication is on the run from military intelligence and has gone into hiding, although the association’s regional safety coordinator thinks his mobile is being tapped and fears for his safety.
Journalists from Myanmar Now, DVB and RFA are all being threatened with arrest if they are not in hiding, he added.
Some local media in Rakhine and Kachin state are closing down while others have asked some reporters to stay away from newsrooms.
One of the biggest concerns is that the internet will be shut down. In the Saging region, mobile internet has been cut off today and there are rumours of a wider shutdown in the next few days.
On 11 February, Frontier Myanmar told the story of a freelance reporter who had gone to take photos of soldiers stationed between the towns of Muse and Namhkam in northern Shan State.
“They chased after him, and hit him in the chest with the barrel of a gun,” said Sai Mun, an editor at the Shan Herald Agency for News.
“When he fell to the ground, they smashed the mobile phone he was taking photos with. They told him he couldn’t take photos, and said he could be killed if he did,” said Sai Mun.
On 9 February, Mizzima journalist Than Htike Aung was hit by rubber bullets fired by police. Mizzima TV is one of two TV news channels that has been ordered off the air.
Another journalist was set upon by a nationalist mob in support of the coup.
In response to the conditions journalists in Myanmar are being forced to work under, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) released a statement saying the violence had “dire implications for freedom of expression”.
“The reports of violence and suppression of protests have dire implications for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly,” they said. “The IFJ stands in full solidarity with our journalist and media colleagues as well as all citizens of Myanmar protesting the military imposition of power and calling for an immediate return to democracy.”
Freedom to protest and the freedom to report on those protests by journalists are often the first things to be restricted in the event of a military coup and this familiar pattern has been repeated since the Myanmar coup took place on 1 February.
It came after military leader Min Aung Hlaing alleged that the landslide victory of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) in November was fraudulent, without providing evidence. On 9 February, NLD’s offices were raided by soldiers.
Written into Myanmar’s constitution is the right to assemble peacefully and – with protests against the coup continuing – the new administration has taken steps to prevent this from happening.
Under the state of emergency, the military regime has banned meetings of more than five people in one place, but Myanmar’s citizens have already begun to defy the ruling.
In response the military regime has used water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas on protestors and there are reports of the use of live bullets in the capital of Naypyidaw.
It is against this backdrop that Min Aung Hlaing’s regime has targeted the media but the new leader and his allies hardly have a glowing record when it comes to dealing with media and journalists.
In 2019, journalist Swe Win was shot in what appeared to be a targeted attack. Not long before, he had published an article revealing the business interests of Min Hlaing which had apparently “infuriated the top”.
Last year, Khaing Mrat Kyaw, editor of Narinjara News, and Nay Myo Lin, the editor-in-chief of the Mandalay-based Voice of Myanmar, were charged with terrorism offences for carrying interviews with the insurgent Arakan Army. Kyaw Linn, a reporter with Myanmar Now, was attacked with rocks in May by unidentified assailants; he has frequently reported on the conflict between Myanmar’s military forces and the Arakan Army.
Looking forward, journalists are already fearful of existing legislation that may be used against them by the new regime, such as the Counter-Terrorism Law and also charges of defamation under the Telecommunications Law.
A proposed new Cyber Security Law demands all internet service providers to give up data stored on citizens at the government’s request.
Significantly, those deemed to be spreading “misinformation” online could face up to three years in jail, a clear violation of free speech.
The regime’s early days and the steps towards new and highly consequential legislation has journalists in the country uneasy.
Speaking to the Columbia Journalism Review, the shot journalist Swe Win said, “Even though I foresaw the coup, I did not foresee the brutal way it would be launched.”
“Within five hours of the coup, I ordered all my colleagues to leave their houses and stay somewhere with their families or their friends. Half of the team did not want to accept my idea because they were outraged, as equally as members of the public. “‘Why should we leave? We’ve got to do what we’ve got to do.’”
Additional reporting by associate editor Mark Frary.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”5641″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
12 Feb 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, Saudi Arabia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]One thousand and one days.
Twenty-four thousand and twenty-four hours.
One million, four hundred and forty-one thousand, four hundred and forty minutes.
It’s almost impossible to imagine. Sitting in a cell, in horrendous conditions, knowing that as a woman you are especially vulnerable in a Saudi jail – a target for abuse and harassment. Whippings and electric shocks are a regular part of your day-to-day life. Your family are barred from visiting for months at a time and every move you make is being monitored and reported on. You’re battered and bruised.
Every time you show dissent another charge added to your ‘crimes’. And that’s before accounting for the fear of contracting Covid, of knowing that your health and wellbeing is the last thing in the world your captors care about.
But that’s been the life that Loujain al-Hathloul has had for nearly three years, detained in a high security prison in Saudi Arabia. Her ‘crime’ was to be a women’s rights advocate. Campaigning for a woman’s right to drive a car. Her bravery in these cruelest of environments is nothing more than inspirational. Which is why so many of you sent her a message at the end of 2020 – to give her strength.
She and her family refused to back down. She has led a hunger strike. She has refused to plead guilty. She has remained resolute. She is a heroine. And she is finally at home.
But this won’t be the end of story. She faces huge restrictions on her civil liberties including a five-year travel ban. Less than 48 hours after her release we don’t know how she is going to be treated by the Saudi Government but we do know that she will refuse to be silenced.
There are too many activists still imprisoned in Saudi for demanding their basic human rights. Too many women being held as political prisoners. Too many activists who just want to build a fairer society. Loujain’s release gives everyone hope, just a little. Hope that the future may be different, hope that you really can make a difference.
Loujain – we’re so pleased you are home with your family. Now we need to guarantee your freedom and that of the other women still sitting in cells across Saudi Arabia.[/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]
11 Feb 21 | Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Ambassador Zheng Zeguang
Embassy of the People’s Republic of China
49-51 Portland Pl, London W1B 1JL
Dear HE Ambassador Zheng,
In 1948 the People’s Republic of China was an original signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of UDHR protects freedom of expression and media freedom.
The actions by your Government today, in banning the BBC World Service, contravene Article 19 and are a direct attack on the plurality of media available to your citizens.
The BBC World Service provides impartial, independent and factual news throughout the world and is a trusted news outlet. This ban is an assault on its integrity as an accurate news source and is a clear effort to further restrict Chinese residents’ access to an independent source of news.
We call on the Chinese Government to immediately re-instate broadcast rights for the BBC and to guarantee ongoing access for BBC journalists both in China and Hong Kong.
As you will know the BBC whilst state funded operates entirely independently from the British Government. There is no justifiable cause for this ban.
Yours sincerely,
Ruth Smeeth
Chief Executive[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Feb 21 | China, Hong Kong, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116226″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]China has banned the BBC in mainland China for breaches of rules on truth and impartiality according to the state news agency.
The report said the British broadcaster would not have its licence renewed by China’s media regulator at the start of the Chinese new year. The move follows the decision last week by the UK regulator, Ofcom, to strip the Chinese state broadcaster CGTN of its licence in the UK.
The Chinese statement said BBC World News “was found to have seriously violated regulations on radio and television management and on overseas satellite television channel management in its China-related reports which went against the requirements that news reporting must be true and impartial, and undermined China’s national interests and ethnic solidarity.”
BBC World News was not available in most domestic news packages in China but could be viewed at some hotels. Recent BBC reports on China’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak and abuses in Xinjiang’s internment camps are thought to have infuriated the authorities.
In Hong Kong, the publicly funded broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong also said it was suspending the relay of BBC radio news programming.
Index on Censorship CEO Ruth Smeeth said, “Index on Censorship is appalled at the Chinese Government’s announcement today to ban the BBC World Service from broadcasting in China.
“Media freedom is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as an original signatory the Republic of China has a responsibility to protect media diversity – not attack it.
“We are concerned that this is just the latest in an ongoing crackdown on foreign media outlets in China. Last year foreign journalists, including from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, were effectively expelled from the country allegedly as a result of their reporting.
“The BBC World Service provides impartial and factual news throughout the world and is a trusted news outlet. This assault on its integrity is a clear effort to further restrict access to information to those who reside in China.
“Index will be writing to the Chinese Ambassador in the UK today as we call on the Chinese Government to immediately re-instate broadcast rights for the BBC and to guarantee ongoing access to BBC journalists both in China and Hong Kong and to ensure their safety.”
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the ban was “an unacceptable curtailing of media freedom. China has some of the most severe restrictions on media & internet freedoms across the globe & this latest step will only damage China’s reputation.”
The BBC said in a statement: “We are disappointed that the Chinese authorities have decided to take this course of action. The BBC is the world’s most trusted international news broadcaster and reports on stories from around the world fairly, impartially and without fear or favour.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
