We the undersigned have serious concerns about Part 2 of the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, and increasingly so in light of recent parliamentary deliberations.
Over the last year, there has been a robust debate about Part 2 of the bill, which outlines new offences on the stirring up of hatred. We all condemn crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice. The difficulty with this Bill, in its current form, is its potential to have a wider, negative effect on freedom of expression in Scotland.
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.
After a wide and sustained backlash, the Scottish Government announced several concessions. Most significantly, Ministers conceded that offending should be limited to ‘intent’. It also committed to ‘broadening and deepening’ a free speech clause covering religion and inserting a new clause on transgender identity.
Cabinet Secretary for Justice Humza Yousaf lodged amendments to effect these changes ahead of Stage 2 deliberations by the Justice Committee, which began on 2 February 2021. However, the Cabinet Secretary, in agreement with other MSPs on the Committee, decided to withdraw amendments on freedom of expression at the eleventh hour, saying he would seek ‘consensus’ on a ‘catch-all’ free speech clause, to be drafted ahead of Stage 3.
This move has, in our view, undermined the whole process of scrutiny to date. Amendments to safeguard freedom of expression on religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity – topics that are subject to strong and often controversial debate – were vitally important and agreed upon by the majority of stakeholders who have engaged with parliament over the last 12 months.
Providing separate and robust freedom of expression provisions on these topics was also the approach advocated by Lord Bracadale QC in evidence to the Committee last year. He said: “Such amendments to the bill would be an expression of the kind of line that we want to identify between ‘offensive behaviour’ on one side and ‘threatening and abusive behaviour’ on the other”.
The idea that a workable ‘catch-all’ provision covering these topics, as well as the characteristics of age, disability, and variations of sex characteristics, can be agreed upon by the government and other parties before final, Stage 3 proceedings take place is, frankly, untenable. Manufacturing such a clause over the next few weeks, behind closed doors, will also necessarily preclude the views of parliament, stakeholders and the public from being taken into account.
We strongly believe that producing workable provisions on the stirring up of hatred in this parliament is now entirely impracticable. These provisions could impact upon the most precious liberties in any democratic society: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and religion. They must be handled with the utmost care.
We urge MSPs in every party to oppose Part 2 of the Hate Crime Bill and allow other, non-contentious aspects of the bill to proceed without it. New proposals on the stirring up of hatred could be brought forward in the next parliament, where they would be scrutinised thoroughly over time, with renewed input by a wide range of stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship;
Emma Webb, Associate Fellow, Civitas;
Ian Murray, Executive Director, Society of Editors;
Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner;
Jim Sillars, former Deputy Leader, Scottish National Party;
Stephen Evans, CEO, the National Secular Society;
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director, The Christian Institute;
Hardeep Singh, Deputy Director, Network of Sikh Organisations;
Trina Budge, Director, For Women Scot;
Andrew Allison, Head of Campaigns, Freedom Association;
Kapil Summan, Editor, Scottish Legal News;
Dr Kath Murray, Research Fellow in Criminology, Uni. of Edinburgh;
Lucy Hunter Blackburn, researcher and former senior civil servant;
Lisa MacKenzie, independent researcher;
Dr Stuart Waiton, sociologist, Abertay University, Dundee;
The Right Honourable William Wragg MP, Chair, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
The Right Honourable Julian Knight MP, Chair, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
CC
The Right Honourable Michael Gove, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Right Honourable Chloe Smith, Minister for the Cabinet Office
Dunja Mijatovic, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner
Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression
Elizabeth Denham, UK Information Commissioner
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon; UK Foreign Office
Kanbar Hossein Bor; UK Foreign Office
We are writing to you to raise serious concerns about the difficulties that journalists, researchers and members of the public currently experience when trying to use FOI legislation, across government.
As you know, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 sets standards for openness and transparency from government, and is a critical tool for ensuring that journalists and members of the public can scrutinise the workings of government.
We have, however, become increasingly concerned about the way in which the legislation is being interpreted and implemented. As the new openDemocracy report ‘Art of Darkness’ makes clear, FOI response rates are at the lowest level since the introduction of the Act 20 years ago.
The report also points to increasing evidence of poor practices across government, such as the use of ‘administrative silence’ to stonewall requests.
In addition, it was recently reported that the Cabinet Office is operating a ‘Clearing House’ unit in which FOI responses are centrally coordinated, undermining the applicant-blind principle of the Act. This raises serious questions about whether information requests by journalists and researchers are being treated and managed differently.
The new report also shows that the regulator charged with implementing Freedom of Information legislation – the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – has seen its budget cut by 41 per cent over the last decade while its FOI complaint caseload has increased by 46 per cent in the same period.
We believe that there are now strong grounds for a review of the UK government’s treatment of and policies for dealing with Freedom of Information requests, and would urge the minister to address these concerns. We urge you to take the following steps as a matter of priority:
Open an inquiry into the operation of the Clearing House, which comprehensively investigates whether its operation is GDPR-compliant, whether journalists and other users of the Act are being monitored and/or blacklisted, and whether this is illegal and/or undermines the applicant-blind principle of the Act.
Consider the merits of introducing an ‘administrative silence’ rule whereby a failure to respond to a request within the requisite time period is deemed to be a refusal and can be appealed in full to the ICO.
Recognise the national interest of an independent and fully funded regulator of information rights by considering the ICO’s critical lack of funding, and making the regulator accountable to and funded by parliament.
Despite recommendations from the ICO, the government has also declined to expand the FOI Act to cover public contracts to private firms – and has failed to deliver on its own pledges to increase the proactive publication of contracting data.
Given the recent National Audit Office report’s criticism about the lack of transparency in government Covid contracting, it is high time that this recommendation was followed through – and that further measures as outlined above are taken to protect and strengthen the public’s right to access information.
Yours,
Mary Fitzgerald, Editor in Chief, openDemocracy
Katharine Viner, Editor in Chief, The Guardian
John Witherow, Editor, The Times
Emma Tucker, Editor, The Sunday Times
Chris Evans, Editor, The Daily Telegraph
Roula Khalaf, Editor, The Financial Times
Alison Phillips, Editor, Daily Mirror
Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief, Associated Newspapers, former Editor, Daily Mail
Alan Rusbridger, former Editor in Chief, The Guardian
Lionel Barber, former Editor, Financial Times
Veronica Wadley, Chair of Arts Council London; former Editor, Evening Standard
David Davis MP
Alex Graham, Chair of the Scott Trust
Ian Murray, Executive Director, Society of Editors
Sir Alan Moses, former Chair, IPSO
Anne Lapping CBE, former Deputy Chair, IPSO
Philip Pullman, author
Baroness Janet Whitaker
Baroness Tessa Blackstone
Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship
Daniel Bruce, Chief Executive, Transparency International
Daniel Gorman, Director, English PEN
Menna Elfyn, President of Wales PEN Cymru
Carl MacDougall, President of Scottish PEN
Rebecca Vincent, Director of International Campaigns, Reporters Without Borders
Michelle Stanistreet, General Secretary, National Union of Journalists
Sian Jones, President, National Union of Journalists
Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive Officer, Internews Europe
John Sauven, Executive Director, Greenpeace
Rachel Oldroyd, Managing Editor, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
Jonathan Heawood, Public Interest News Foundation
Anthony Barnett, Founding Director, Charter 88
Chris Blackhurst, former Editor, The Independent
Suzanna Taverne, Chair, openDemocracy
Philippe Sands QC
George Peretz QC
David Leigh, investigative journalist
Robert Peston, journalist and author
Peter Oborne, journalist and author
Nick Cohen, journalist and author
David Aaronovitch, journalist and author
Michael Crick, journalist and author
Ian Cobain, investigative journalist
Tom Bower, investigative journalist
Aditya Chakrabortty, Senior Economics Commentator, The Guardian
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
February 8, 2021
Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson:
We, the undersigned press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights advocacy organizations, write today to share our profound concern about the ongoing criminal and extradition proceedings relating to Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, under the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
While our organizations have different perspectives on Mr. Assange and his organization, we share the view that the government’s indictment of him poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. We urge you to drop the appeal of the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court to reject the Trump administration’s extradition request.
We also urge you to dismiss the underlying indictment.
The indictment of Mr. Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely—and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do. Journalists at major news publications regularly speak with sources, ask for clarification or more documentation, and receive and publish documents the government considers secret. In our view, such a precedent in this case could effectively criminalize these common journalistic practices.
In addition, some of the charges included in the indictment turn entirely on Mr. Assange’s decision to publish classified information. News organizations frequently and necessarily publish classified information in order to inform the public of matters of profound public significance.
We appreciate that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting bona fide national security interests, but the proceedings against Mr. Assange jeopardize journalism that is crucial to democracy.
The Trump administration positioned itself as an antagonist to the institution of a free andunfettered press in numerous ways. Its abuse of its prosecutorial powers was among the most disturbing. We are deeply concerned about the way that a precedent created by prosecuting Assange could be leveraged—perhaps by a future administration—against publishers and journalists of all stripes. Major news organizations share this concern, which is why the announcement of charges against Assange in May 2019 was met with vociferous and nearly universal condemnation from virtually every major American news outlet, even though many of those news outlets have criticized Mr. Assange in the past.
It is our understanding that senior officials in the Obama administration shared this concern as well. Former Department of Justice spokesperson Matthew Miller told the Washington Post in 2013, “The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists.”
It was reportedly the press freedom implications of any prosecution of Mr. Assange that led Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to decide against indicting him after considering doing so.
It is unfortunately the case that press freedom is under threat globally. Now more than ever, it is crucial that we protect a robust and adversarial press—what Judge Murray Gurfein in the Pentagon Papers case memorably called a “cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press” —in the United States and abroad.
With this end in mind, we respectfully urge you to forgo the appeal of Judge Baraitser’s ruling, and to dismiss the indictment of Mr. Assange.
Respectfully,
(in alphabetical order)
Access Now American Civil Liberties Union Amnesty International – USA Center for Constitutional Rights Committee to Protect Journalists Defending Rights and Dissent Demand Progress Electronic Frontier Foundation Fight for the Future First Amendment Coalition Free Press Freedom of the Press Foundation Human Rights Watch Index on Censorship Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University National Coalition Against Censorship Open The Government Partnership for Civil Justice Fund PEN America Project on Government Oversight Reporters Without Borders Roots Action The Press Freedom Defense Fund of First Look Institute Whistleblower & Source Protection Program (WHISPeR) at ExposeFacts[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116175″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Ahead of the International Day of Solidarity with Belarus on 7 February, the undersigned organisations working in the field of freedom of expression and media freedom call for the immediate and unconditional release of all journalists and media workers who continue to be arbitrarily detained.
Nearly six months since President Alexander Lukashenko claimed a landslide victory in what has been widely acknowledged and condemned as a fraudulent election, opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya remains in exile and thousands of protesters continue to take to the streets of Minsk calling for his resignation.
The regime has made every effort to prevent its citizens from accessing independent information. News outlets have had their publishing licences revoked. Some have their equipment seized. Independent newspapers are banned from printing and barred from sales through the national state monopolist retailer.
As part of this effort, the authorities have also used violence, threats, and arbitrary detention to intimidate journalists and prevent them from doing their jobs. Reporters and photographers wearing press vests have been deliberately targeted by law enforcement. According to the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ), journalists were detained 480 times in 2020. They have spent over 1,200 days behind bars, often without being told what, if any, charges they face.
At least ten journalists and media workers remain in detention, among them are several of our friends and colleagues. They are: Katsiaryna Barysevich, Daria Chultsova, Yulia Slutskaya, Alla Sharko, Siarhei Alsheuski, Petr Slutski, Ksenia Lutskina, Andrei Aliaksandrau, and Aliaksandr Mikrukou.
As the International Day of Solidarity with Belarus approaches, we are calling for each and every journalist and media worker to be immediately and unconditionally released. We condemn the blatant violations to their human rights and once again remind the Belarusian authorities of their obligations under international law.
Signed:
Jessica Ní Mhainín, Senior Policy Research and Advocacy Officer, Index on Censorship
Dave Elseroad, Head of Advocacy and Geneva Office, Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
Maria Ordzhonikidze, Director, Justice for Journalists Foundation
Ricardo Gutiérrez, General Secretary, European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Sarah Clarke, Head of Europe and Central Asia, ARTICLE 19
Laurens Hueting, Advocacy Officer, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Jaroslaw Wlodarczyk, Secretary General, International Association of Press Clubs (IAPC)
Marcin Lewicki, President, Press Club Polska
Daniela Kraus, General Secretary, Presseclub Concordia, Vienna
Andrei Bastunets, Chairperson, Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ)
Peter Spiegel, Press Freedom Committee Chair, Overseas Press Club of America (OPC)
Board of Frankfurter Presseclub
Board of Press Club Brussels Europe
Pierre Ruetschi, Executive Director, Geneva Press Club
Ryszard Bankowicz, President, Polish Club of International Columnists
S Venkat Narayan, President, FCC of South Asia, New Delhi, India
Uri Dromi, Director General, Jerusalem Press Club[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116171″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Picture the scene.
A freelance photojournalist attends a demonstration, does his job, documents the protest, sells the images to a national newspaper and then goes home. A few hours later, five police officers arrive at his home, confiscate his equipment and his mobile phone. He is arrested in front of his family. He is taken to the police station, fingerprinted and has his DNA taken. He is then put in a cell.
You would assume that I’m describing an event that happened in Russia or Belarus or Myanmar. I could be outlining a plot in a Hollywood film. I’m not. This happened in Kent, on Thursday, last week.
Andy Aitchison is a freelance photographer. He was taking photos of a protest at Napier Barracks in Folkestone, where people had gathered to raise concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers held inside. Andy wasn’t part of the protest, he was there as a member of the press. He sold the images to The Guardian, among others, and then, job done, went home.
Six hours later, the police arrived at his home and arrested him in front of his children on suspicion of criminal damage. They weren’t interested in his press card or why he was there. But they knew enough to seize his equipment including the memory card holding the images and his mobile phone. He was taken to the local police station, processed, fingerprinted, had his DNA taken and then held in a cell for seven hours.
When they finally released him, he was remanded on bail until 22 February and barred from going back to the Napier Barracks. This prevented him from covering the impact of a fire that occurred on the site the following day.
Andy is a journalist. He is registered with the National Union of Journalists. He is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
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?
Index is truly disgusted at this behaviour. The authorities have absolutely no right to arrest a journalist for doing his job. Andy needs to be de-arrested immediately. His equipment needs to be returned to him immediately. And he needs an apology.
The British Government has zero moral authority to promote free speech and free expression around the world if they won’t abide by it at home.[/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]
India is currently witnessing one of its longest and largest ever expressions of dissent. Farmers – protesting three laws passed in September by the central government – have been camping at the borders of the national capital since 26 November last year, challenging the powers in New Delhi.
The protests would seem, on the surface, to show that India is functioning as a democracy with the freedom of individuals to protest. It is therefore ironic that at least seven journalists have been booked for reporting on the events that have transpired during the clashes between police and authorities.
On 29 January , six prominent journalists – Rajdeep Sardesai, Mrinal Pande, Zafar Agha, Vinod Jose, Paresh Nath and Anant Nath – were booked by Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh police under charges of sedition, criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity.
A day later, freelance journalist Mandeep Punia, who was on a project for The Caravan magazine, was detained by the Delhi police, a few hours after he went live on Facebook and reported on how stones were pelted at the farmers at Singhu border, even as security personnel looked on. He has since been granted bail.
Based on eyewitness testimony during a rally by the protesting farmers on Republic Day, 26 January, when India celebrates the 1950 entry into force of its Constitution, The Caravan reported that a man was killed after being shot by the Delhi police. Sardesai, Pande and Agha’s tweets echoed the testimony.
Police have vehemently denied shooting the farmer, which they claim is backed up by an autopsy report. However, the man’s family has refused to accept the Delhi police’s claim. “The doctor even told me that even though he had seen the bullet injury, he can do nothing as his hands are tied,” the farmer’s grandfather told Indian news website The Wire.
Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire, was booked by the Uttar Pradesh police for tweeting the police report of the incident.
While the controversy around the farmer’s death is far from settled, the government’s decision to go after these journalists is only the latest episode of its effort to gag the voices that have dared to question it.
The question arises, why would the central government of the largest democracy in the world choose to take these steps? This was answered by the secretary general of the Press Club of India during a meeting organised to protest the intimidation of journalists covering the protests.
“The government is sending a message that while on paper we’re a democracy, we are behaving like several undemocratic states of the world,” Anand Kumar Sahay said.
The statement encompasses almost everything that journalists in India, who are not toeing the line yet, deal with as they try to speak truth to powerful authorities. India lies 142nd on Reporters Without Borders’ world press freedom rankings.
RSF says: “Ever since the general elections in the spring of 2019, won overwhelmingly by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, pressure on the media to toe the Hindu nationalist government’s line has increased.”
That a large number of journalists are being booked, arrested or assaulted for doing their job just around these farmers’ protest tells a worrying story. A more thorough examination of the cases, with focus on the organisations that these journalists represent and the ideology that they support, will show whether Modi is targeting just the critical media or journalism as a whole.
There are also more covert ways in which the far-right party that governs the Indian state has told news establishments to not speak out against them if they want to preserve their business.
The mainstream news organisations in the country typically function on an advertisement-based revenue model. While this has helped in keeping the cost of the national dailies low, it has also made them dependent on large corporations and the government, the two biggest advertisers in newspapers.
As expected, the government has not missed the opportunity to milk this dependency and has led many media organisations to indulge in self-censorship and push the government agenda forward, particularly during the Covid pandemic when government advertising has increased.
While there is ample evidence of censorship by the Indian government on independent news websites like Newslaundry, it was also hinted at by the Modi in an interview with prominent English daily The Indian Express, in the run-up to Assembly Elections 2019.
In the article, Modi talks about the PM-KISAN income support or ‘dole’ scheme for farmers and compares this with payments received by other sectors from the government, such as publishing.
“I give advertisements to the Indian Express. It doesn’t benefit me, but is it a dole? Advertisements to newspapers may fit into a description of dole,” Modi said.
Media organisations are therefore on a warning by the government.
The close government scrutiny had also become clear back in 2018, when anchor Punya Prasun Bajpai was forced out from ABP News.
In a detailed account of the reasons behind his departure, Bajpai described how the channel’s proprietor had told him to avoid mentioning Modi’s name in the context of any criticism of the government.
Bajpai also described a 200-member monitoring team that was involved in observing news channels resulting in directives that would be sent to editors about what should be showed and how.
These “commandments”, which were reserved for TV news and large national dailies until 2019, have now reached the digital versions of these conventional news organisations. The only journalistic outfits who have dared to critically examine this government’s rule operate as digital platforms. The government is thus looking to “regulate” their work as well.
Censorship of content that is consumed by millions has not existed before on this scale.
But it has now permeated the Indian media to such an extent that freshers starting work in media are being told to “ride the tide” and “reserve their optimism” for when the political environment is less volatile.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”5656″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Index on Censorship is extremely concerned at the arrest of freelance photographer Andy Aitchison, who was arrested at his home last Thursday after covering a demonstration at a former military barracks in Kent earlier the same day. The barracks is being used to house asylum seekers in allegedly substandard conditions.
“What is happening at Napier Barracks is an issue of significant public interest,” said Jessica Ní Mhainín, senior policy research and advocacy officer at Index on Censorship. “We have every right to know what is going on there and we need journalists and photographers like Aitchison to be free to document and report on it. But instead of enabling journalists to report in the public interest, the authorities are actively preventing them from doing so.”
Five police officers went to Aitchison’s home to arrest him on suspicion of criminal damage. They seized his memory card and mobile phone, and took him to the police station even after he had shown them his National Union of Journalists membership card. They took his fingerprints and DNA, and detained him for almost seven hours before releasing him on bail until 22 February.
“This is a blatant and appalling press freedom violation, which has already – due to the terms of his bail – resulted in Aitchison being unable to cover the fire that broke out at the same barracks on Friday afternoon,” said Ní Mhainín. “We call for Aitchison’s immediate and unconditional de-arrest, and for his equipment – which should have never been seized in the first place – to be immediately returned to him”.
“Serious questions need to be asked about how this could have happened and why it is taking so long for remediation. Has the UK forgotten that it has committed to leading the Media Freedom Coalition? This is what censorship looks like – not media freedom,” Ní Mhainín said.
Index on Censorship has filed a Council of Europe alert.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116129″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The last 12 months have been difficult for everyone. Whilst many of us have lost loved ones and tried to cope with the impact of lockdowns, social restrictions, closed businesses, redundancies, reduced wages, home schooling and the fear of illness, others have sought to exploit the situation – hoping that the world wouldn’t notice.
Our theme for the winter edition of Index on Censorship magazine was Masked by Covid – the underreported stories of 2020 which had been drowned out by the global public health emergency. There were simply too many for one edition of the magazine.
The news cycle has been dominated by Covid, Trump and Brexit with little else being able to break through. This in itself provided the ideal opportunity for leaders of repressive regimes to move against their citizens with impunity; after all the world wasn’t watching. But when you add the ‘legitimacy’ of emergency regulations to the mix under the guise of protecting the population against Covid, the perfect storm for repression and tyranny has been created.
When the virus spread last spring, Index started covering how it was affecting free speech around the world through a project called Disease Control. Documenting new legislation which closed local newspapers, new regulations which restricted or delayed access to government information, limitations on the free press, the end of the right to protest in numerous countries and arrests of political activists in dozens of countries.
As we all now await to be vaccinated and long for a return to normal, you would hope that maybe the dictators and authoritarian leaders, around the globe, would mitigate their actions knowing that the world might start to pay attention. Unsurprisingly that isn’t proving to be the case.
Only this week we have seen the Polish Government ban abortion, the Greek government propose a new university police force to deal with ‘trouble makers’ on campus and, in Russia, the coronavirus restrictions have been used as a cover to arrest Alexei Navalny’s allies – in the wake of his detention and the subsequent protests.
And it hasn’t just been Covid that has provided cover for oppression. In Turkey, on 27 December – when many of us were more focused on Netflix then the news – the government passed a new piece of anti-terrorism legislation, Preventing Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I think most of us would welcome legislation that sought to stop the proliferation of WMDs.
Whilst this legislation has ostensibly been introduced to meet a United Nations Security Council counterterrorism resolution, unfortunately this new law actually goes well beyond that. It is an unfettered attack on civil society organisations across Turkey – with a clear emphasis on undermining those organisations which seek to protect minorities, especially the Kurdish population.
The legislation enables the Interior Ministry to replace board members of NGOs with state-appointed trustees. They can also suspend all operations and activities of an NGO if members are being prosecuted on terrorism charges – this would seem completely reasonable in many nation states, but as over 300,000 people are arrested for being a member of a terrorist group in Turkey every year, the definition of terrorist isn’t quite the global standard.
The legislation also gives the Governor’s office the right to undertake annual inspections of NGOs adding a new admin burden, international NGOs are also covered by new provisions and unsurprisingly financial assets and online donations to individual campaigns can be blocked by the government to “prevent terrorist financing and money laundering”.
Erdogan has just doubled down as an authoritarian leader and did so without global condemnation or even notice. It simply isn’t good enough…
All of these actions, and the many others from Hong Kong to Uganda, seek to cause division, undermine hope in the domestic population and entrench control. The world is getting smaller, technology means that we can know what is happening, as it happens, in every corner of the world. But too many people have stopped paying attention.
For Index it means that we have to double down and keep finding new ways to tell people’s stories so no one can claim ignorance.[/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]
President Joe Biden has signed a number of executive orders in the early days of his presidency that will impact upon free speech.
How the 46th president of the United States of America will be remembered in terms of protecting free speech will become apparent in the coming years. But, after four years of President Trump’s attacks on the media and introducing legislation that restricted a range of freedoms, the early days of the Biden’s administration have come as a welcome relief.
Of the more than two dozen orders signed, at least six will have ramifications for Americans in terms of their freedom of expression.
Index takes a look at how each will do just that.
Preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation
Perhaps the most notable executive order signed in the last week is the order to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Discriminatory bans on LGBT+ people can often stop them from speaking out.
The order says: “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.”
The order will end the ban on transgender students competing in sports teams for their identified gender.
Commenting on the order, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said: “The ACLU urges the Biden administration to not only roll back Trump administration policies discriminating against transgender and non-binary people, but take action to more fully recognize transgender and non-binary people. The ACLU’s priority for the Biden administration is an executive order related to accurate ID documents.”
Rescinds the Trump administration’s 1776 Commission, directs agencies to review their actions to ensure racial equity
Trump planned so-called ‘patriotic education’ in America’s schools, which raised alarm over First Amendment issues concerning forcing schools to teach children in a certain way.
The 1776 commission, set up in September 2020 and signed by executive order in November, essentially explored which parts of American should be taught and how they should be interpreted.
Announcing the commission Trump said: “We must clear away the twisted web of lies in our schools and classrooms and teach our children the magnificent truth about our country. We want our sons and daughters to know that they are citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.”
Inclusion of non-citizens in the Census and apportionment of congressional representatives
When President Trump signed an executive order to not include people in censuses based on their immigration status, some viewed this as an infringement of their 14th amendment rights.
This section of the American constitution grants citizenship to all “born or naturalised within the United States” and gives them “equal protection under the laws”.
To not recognise illegal immigrants via a census may imply such people are no longer afforded such protections, key to ensuring their right to liberty and free speech. Biden’s order reverses this.
Fortifies DACA after Trump’s efforts to undo protections for undocumented people brought into the country as children
DACA ensures those undocumented immigrants who arrived in the USA under the age of 16 could apply for a permit allowing them to work legally in the country, providing they have a high school diploma and (next to) no criminal record.
Trump rescinded the policy and subsequently his Department of Justice claimed information given by those applying for the permits could later be used against them to deport them, despite the act of declaring information on the form being part of a process of establishing their legal entitlements. This was a clear violation of the protection of their free speech.
Reverses the Trump administration’s restrictions on US entry for passport holders from seven Muslim-majority countries
The First Amendment protects the sharing of information and speech. Trump’s ban on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries was an obvious barrier to this.
The policy also raised questions over the respect of religious freedom and reached the Supreme Court in 2018, where it was upheld.
Dissenting voices at the time were expressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayer who – joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg – said: “The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our founders honoured that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”
When Biden reversed the policy on 20 January, the White House released a statement saying: “The United States was built on a foundation of religious freedom and tolerance, a principle enshrined in the United States Constitution.”
Biden overturns ban on transgender troops
One of the most controversial policies brought in under the administration of President Donald Trump was the ban on transgender members of the military.
Transitioning troops were previously required to be stable in their gender for a minimum of 18 months before being allowed to serve. Biden’s latest executive order eliminates this.[/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]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship Head of Content explained the problems the Covid-19 pandemic has placed on journalists for the French magazine Monocole.
In the podcast “The Stack“, run by Monocle, Steinfeld said that the pandemic creates noise that distracts people, ensuring increases in media restrictions go unnoticed.
“Dictators love noise,” she said. “They love distractions. So, while we have been completely justifiably focussed on Covid and refreshing our news feeds. There been so many stories at Index we have heard about, but they just have not been big news stories. In other years they would be.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship CEO Ruth Smeeth added her thoughts to proposed legislation to protect free speech in UK universities.
According to the UK Parliament website, the bill will “place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech; to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty; and for connected purposes”.
In the Daily Express, Smeeth said: “Universities are the home of debate and investigation in society and should always be a home for exploring new and controversial ideas. We must ensure free speech exists on campus.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The global Covid-19 pandemic has been the root cause of some of the most concerning and frightening attacks on journalists worldwide.
For The Times’ Red Box, Index’s Head of Content Jemimah Steinfeld laid out why the attacks were so concerning:
“Even we have been shocked by the scale of the attacks,” she said. “Journalists have been detained in Serbia; they’ve been called ‘wimps’ by Brazil’s leader Jair Bolsonaro; they’ve been expelled from China; banned from asking questions at lobby briefings in the UK; assaulted by police in South Africa; cowed by legislative change in Hungary.”
We are currently working hard to ensure that our new website is in perfect working order so we can continue to bring you the latest news, views and content from around the world. You may find that some pages are currently offline or that you are unable to find something that you are looking for. This is only temporary - and we apologise for any convenience this may cause.
Please consider subscribing to our weekly newsletter below, so that you are among the first to hear from our contributors and don't miss anything in future.
Thanks for your understanding.
?
STAY INFORMED.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
?
SUPPORT OUR WORK
Index on Censorship’s work is only possible because of donations from people like you.
Please consider chipping in to help us give a voice to the voiceless:
