17 Jun 13 | Americas
Sparked by a series of transport fare hikes and official corruption, the ongoing mass protests in Brazil’s cities have been greeted by crackdowns by police. Rafael Spuldar reports on the journalists caught in the crossfire
While large protests are not common events in Brazil, some of the protesters say “the giant has awoken”, meaning that Brazil’s population of 190 million is mobilising to fight corruption and political misconduct.
As many as 15 journalists were injured by police and two were taken into custody during last Thursday’s demonstrations in São Paulo, according to Brazil’s Association of Investigative Journalism (Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo, Abraji). The journalists were allegedly beaten, maced or hit by non-lethal rubber bullets covering the protests.
Photographer Sérgio Andrade da Silva from Futura Press agency was hit in the eye by a rubber bullet. Doctors say his chances of full recovery are less than 5 in a hundred.
Reporter Giuliana Valloni from Folha de S.Paulo, Brazil’s biggest daily newspaper, was also hit in the eye by a rubber bullet. She says a policeman shot at her from a 20-meters.
“I wasn’t attacking anyone, I wasn’t cursing at anyone. I was doing my job”, Giuliana told Folha from her hospital bed.
“I saw him aiming at me, but I never thought he would fire, because I had (policemen) aiming at me before that night. You’ll never think that an armed guy in uniform will ever shoot you in the face”, she said.
Folha says that seven of its staff members – including Giuliana – were attacked by policemen at Thursday’s protests.
The harshest clashes between policemen and protesters occurred on Consolação Avenue, in downtown São Paulo. The crowd attempted to march up Consolação to reach Paulista Avenue – the financial center — but riot police blocked their way. More than 200 people were taken into custody.
Videos posted on social media and on YouTube allegedly show police abuse against demonstrators. Some people were targeted with tear gas in their own homes while recording videos of the protests. Other videos show protesters being shot even while they chanted sem violência, sem violência (“no violence, no violence”).
Organizations like Abraji and Brazil’s Press Association (Associação Brasileira de Imprensa, ABI) issued statements denouncing police excesses against media professionals and protesters, and urging the government to take action against them.
“The Union’s Public Ministry cannot be neither passive nor irresponsive before the soulless violence committed in São Paulo’s capital by the State’s security forces, which repeats without originality the repressive practices of the dictatorial regime”, said ABI in its statement, linking the recent events to the repression seen during Brazil’s military rule (1964-1985).
Abraji’s executive director Guilherme Alpendre says acts of violence against journalists during demonstrations are not a common thing, and he believes negative feedback will probably ease down police action and prevent new cases like the ones seen in São Paulo last Thursday.
However, Alpendre points out the fact that attacks by state agents against journalists have increased in the past three years. He cites reporters Mauri König and Rodrigo Neto as examples of that trend: the former wrote about police misconduct in the state of Paraná and had to move to Peru after receiving death threats, while the latter was shot down after denouncing involvement of police members with crime gangs in the state of Minas Gerais.
“I’m not saying all these cases are connected, or that the same method was employed in them, but what we see now is more violence perpetrated by the state against journalists. Those were media professionals identified as such, and they were attacked anyway”, Alpendre told Index on Censorship.
The demonstrations are taking place in many cities — São Paulo, Rio, Brasília, Belo Horizonte, Curitiba, Goiânia and Natal. It started as a national movement against the increase in bus fares, but now its members – mostly young people from leftist parties and students’ organizations – claim their demands are broader.
Protests could be seen during the weekend in federal capital Brasília, Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro, coinciding with the start of the Confederations Cup, a warm-up event to next year’s World Cup, to be hosted in Brazil. Protesters demanded less money be spent on building stadiums and more be applied to education and other social works.
While protests in Belo Horizonte were peaceful, riot police used tear gas and stun grenades against the crowds in Rio and Brasília, where 29 people were arrested.
More demonstrations are scheduled for today. Protests are also being organised in 27 cities around the world in solidarity.
Some scholars have linked demonstrations in Brazil to those seen in Turkey, where mostly young, web-connected people have taken the streets – first to protest against the building of a shopping mall on a park, but later to fight the government.
Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells – one of the world’s most prominent cyberculture theorists – said last week that the demonstrations all over the world found a new way to gather and claim “the city back to the citizens”.
“Before, if people were discontented, the only thing they could do was to go to a mass demonstration organized by parties and unions, which would soon start to negotiate in the name of people. But now the capacity to self-organize is spontaneous. This is new, and this is social networking”, said Castells.
17 Jun 13 | Europe and Central Asia, Index Reports
Stop G8 graffiti in London. (Photo: David Rowe / Demotix)
When G8 leaders meet in Northern Ireland today, they will focus on transparency, trade and development. But they cannot hope to achieve their declared goals on transparency, corruption and human rights without a clear commitment to respecting freedom of expression at home. Sean Gallagher writes
While the G8 nations generally perform well in indicators of media freedom, digital freedom and civil liberties more widely, there are some key weaknesses including constraints on the media, and digital surveillance. Russia is an outlier with a deteriorating record on free expression with the Russian government having increasingly pursued a course of restrictions on speech and free assembly.
While most of the G8 stand for digital freedom internationally, the Prism revelations drastically undermine the US stance in favour of an open internet on the international stage. Revelations that some of the G8 nations – generally seen as having the freest media, open digital spheres and a supportive artistic environment – have engaged in ongoing, intrusive and secret population-wide surveillance is deeply concerning. All of these nations are pledged to uphold the right of the individual to the freedom of expression through either native legislation or international agreements.
The G8’s emphasis on transparency at its Northern Ireland meeting is welcome – not least since one of the areas of considerable concern and varying performance across the G8 is corruption. Most of the G8 perform relatively well on corruption (though not as strongly as might be hoped for), Italy lags behind the US, Canada, Germany, UK, France and Japan to a striking degree, while Russia’s ranking is one of the worst internationally (as shown in table one).
How the G8 nations stack up against each other on media freedom
In terms of media freedom Germany and Canada come first (according to Reporters without Borders 2012 index). The United Kingdom and the United States are behind these two but still ranked fairly highly while France, Japan and Italy lag behind these four a bit more. Russia is substantially lower indicating a weak and deteriorating environment for media freedom.
The press freedom measurements only give a snapshot of the G8 nations. Briefly, here are the key issues affecting the media in the G8 nations.
Germany’s media is largely free and the legal framework protects public interest journalism. Germans are ill-served by their country’s lack of plurality in broadcast media.
In Canada, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and other observers have found that access to information has become more difficult since Conservative Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006 – particularly when it comes to climate change. The country’s hate speech laws and lack of protection for confidential sources are issues our research highlights.
The United Kingdom’s move to reform libel laws is a clear positive for free press and expression, a change that our organisation helped deliver. Cross-party proposals to introduce statutory underpinning for media regulation via the Royal Charter on the Regulation of the Self-Regulation of the Press cross a red line by of introducing political involvement into media regulation. The shelving of the Communications Data Bill, or “Snooper’s Charter”, is also an encouraging sign, although a number of politicians are still calling for its reintroduction — especially after the Woolwich attack — which raises more questions.
In the United States, recent Prism revelations of the Obama administration’s continued surveillance both around the world and of the American people through secret subpoenas raise serious questions about the government’s activities. Alleged mistreatment of “tea party”-related organisations by the Internal Revenue Service also embroiled the Obama administration in questions about its commitment to transparency.
France’s media is generally free and offers a wide representation among political viewpoints but there is unwelcome government involvement in broadcasting and the country’s strict privacy laws encourage self-censorship. Here, too, government surveillance has increased and politicians have used security services to spy on journalists.
While Japan’s press environment can be called free, self-censorship is rife and rules detailing “crimes against reputation” are enshrined in the constitution. Compounding these issues is the cozy relationship between government and journalists. The government’s poor transparency on the nuclear crisis at Fukushima has been singled out as a contributing factor to its decline in international rankings.
Italy’s media environment is robust in some ways but is hamstrung by political involvement in ownership and high media concentration in too few hands (not least by former PM Berlusconi). The country’s leaders are also adept at using the media in support of their own agendas.
Never a beacon for a free media, Russia has experienced an outright government takeover of the major broadcasting outlets and widespread violence and threats against journalists. When compared to the rest of the G8, Russia’s record is decidedly bad although censorship is not at the level of China (which does not though claim to be a democracy).
Citizen Surveillance on the Digital Frontier
The digital freedom index created by Freedom House is another useful indicator although it encapsulates many different dimensions into just one number. The US and Germany perform strongly in this index, with Italy and the UK somewhat behind. Russia’s ranking is very low. However, the Prism affair surely more than dents the US ranking – and shows how hard it is to combine surveillance and censorship (and other aspects of digital freedom) into one index.
The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Frank La Rue issued a timely report on government surveillance, privacy and freedom of expression ahead of the revelations of massive and appalling data mining carried on by the US government under the cloak of secrecy. This is a clear breach of transparency and digital freedom on a global scale.
While the US and European countries have been pushing back against the Russian and Chinese model of top-down internet governance, the widespread moves toward online surveillance undermines their efforts to ensure a multistakeholder approach to the web as part of the ITU process.
Though the US leads the world on Google requests for user data (a number that now seems just the tip of the iceberg in comparison to the Prism revelations), the G8 nations do not approach the levels that Brazil and India reach on demanding content be removed from the search engine.
The United States government has granted itself unprecedented powers to snoop on its citizens at home and abroad. First, the PATRIOT Act, parts of which were renewed in 2011, gave the US government unprecedented power to intrude into the online lives of its citizens in extra-judicial ways. Later, in 2008, Congress approved the FISA Amendments Act, which envisioned the Prism and other programmes described in articles released by The Guardian and the Washington Post. Despite this, several bills that would have given the government additional powers in the area of surveillance and copyright infringement have been withdrawn after concerted campaigns by internet and civil society activists.
The United Kingdom has stepped back recently from mass population surveillance with the shelving of the Communication Data Bill. But revelations of data-sharing activities with its US partner, as reported by The Guardian suggest we do not have the full picture. Beginning with the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and continuing with the recently shelved Communication Data Bill, successive governments have looked to surveillance of online activity in the name of national security. On a more positive note, interim guidelines on prosecutions of offensive speech on social media have been issued with the aim of hemming in criminal prosecutions, though restrictions on “grossly offensive” speech are still on the statute book. Takedown requests aimed at Google and Twitter are of a level comparable to France and Germany.
Japan is generally seen as having a positive record on digital freedom despite the government’s pressure to force telecom companies to remove “questionable” material from the web in regard to the Fukushima crisis. The country also instituted a strict piracy law at the behest of the Recording Industry of Association of Japan.
While Italy has generally been slower to adopt new technology, Italians internet users are bound by rules on data retention that can be seen as a threat. The regulations allow the government to target criminals and protect national security, yet do not guarantee the privacy of the data it collects. Italy has strict copyright and piracy legislation. Most worrying is the conviction of Google executives for violation of privacy laws due to material posted to the search engine giant by a third party.
Germany’s approach to digital rights is regarded as open and courts have ruled that access to the internet is a basic human right. But in 2011, German authorities acquired the license for a type of spyware called FinSpy, produced by the British Gamma Group. Hate speech laws are beginning to have an impact on digital free speech.
In France, online surveillance has been extended as a result of a 2011 anti-terror law and Hadopi 2 (the law “promoting the distribution and protection of creative works on the Internet”) which is supposed to reduce illegal file downloading. Hadopi 2 makes it possible for content creators to pay private sector companies to conduct online surveillance and filtering, creating a precedent for the privatisation of censorship. Another 2011 law requires internet service providers to hand over passwords to authorities if requested.
In Canada, too, the right to free expression online is coming under increased pressure. On a positive note, civil society activists were able to derail the Conservative government’s attempt to obtain online activity records without judicial oversight. Yet, the Canadian government recently introduced a law requiring librarians to register before posting on social media without first registering for either personal or professional use.
Though Russia’s online environment is relatively open, the government has been tightening restrictions leading to blocking of websites. The government claims this is to tackle crime and illegal pornography. However there are fears that it will apply the regulations too broadly and damage free expression in the digital realm through the creation of extra judicial block lists and censorship of content.
Muzzling Artistic Expression
While most of the G8 have a wide ranging and often vibrant artistic sphere, there are many pressures that can lead of censorship or self-censorship whether from public order, obscenity or hate speech laws or from self-censorship including especially timidy by arts institutions. As Index on Censorship noted in its recent conference report on artistic expression in the UK, institutional filters are stifling creativity. The same can be said for the arts in the other G8 nations, though for different reasons. The specific reasons for brakes on creativity will be explored more fully in each of the country reports. But common themes emerge around hate speech, fear of offence and budget constraints that force arts organisations to shy away from controversial works. Arts funding continues to be used as a political weapon in some countries. In Russia, artists must avoid offending the sensibilities of government partners like the Russian Orthodox Church — as in the Pussy Riot prosecution.
17 Jun 13 | In the News
CANADA
Free speech doesn’t cover libel or slander, in any language
It was back in 2006 that Vancouver lawyer Roger McConchie warned in a CanWest News Service interview that libel cases were on the increase in Canada and that the Internet was “the single most important reason for the increase.” His law firm, McConchie Law Corp., has kept track of Canadian cases since the first Internet libel suit was launched in 1995, with one Julian Fantino awarded $40,000 in damages.
(Times Colonist)
CHINA
Is Hong Kong really free or does Beijing call the shots
The flight of a government whistle-blower – or possible fugitive from justice – to the quasi-democratic Chinese enclave of Hong Kong has given this former British colony a bit of free PR.
(Patriot-News)
EGYPT
Egyptian Politician: Jews Use Human Blood for Passover Matzos
The Muslim world is keeping the centuries old “matzah blood libel” alive and well – even in Egypt, with which Israel has a peace treaty.
(Arutz Sheva 7)
EUROPEAN UNION
EU deal to protect film, TV, sets the stage for transatlantic trade pact
Compromise protecting film, TV from market liberalisation permits progress on transatlantic talks but could stoke protectionism in US
(South China Morning Post)
INDIA
EU not ready to give India ‘data secure’ status
The European Union has picked holes in India’s data security system and suggested that a joint expert group be set up to propose ways on how the country should tighten measures to qualify as a data secure nation.
(The Hindu)
MIDDLE EAST
Lifting of censorship boosts Arab media
Lifting of media censorship in Arab Spring countries has boosted local channels which have stepped into the role Aljazeera had been playing in the region for years, according to a new book.
(The Peninsula)
UNITED KINGDOM
Met chief ‘faces libel claim over Plebgate’
Britain’s most senior police officer faces being called to testify on oath over leaks in the Andrew Mitchell ‘Plebgate’ affair.
(Daily Mail)
The home of free speech closes down for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden
The news that the Government is trying to prevent whistleblower Edward Snowden from travelling to this country by telling airlines not to accept him as a passenger has made me furious.
(The Independent)
DIY YouTube directors to self-regulate under new censorship scheme
Film watchdogs in three countries including UK are to pilot a program in which amateur video-makers can self-regulate
(The Observer)
UNITED STATES
First Amendment Ban on ‘gruesome images’ threatens free speech
For those of us who worry about the vitality of free speech in the “land of the free,” recent news isn’t good. On June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a Colorado appeals court decision banning anti-abortion activists from displaying “gruesome images” of mutilated fetuses that might be seen by children.
(Pantagraph)
15 Jun 13 | Magazine, Volume 42.02 Summer 2013
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”90659″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://shop.exacteditions.com/gb/index-on-censorship”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine on your Apple, Android or desktop device for just £17.99 a year. You’ll get access to the latest thought-provoking and award-winning issues of the magazine PLUS ten years of archived issues, including The multipolar challenge to free expression.
Subscribe now.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 Jun 13 | Comment, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
Russia’s new blasphemy law is censorship under the guise of protection for believers, says Padraig Reidy
In his speech on Russia’s Constitution Day in December 2012, Vladimir Putin bemoaned the decline of spiritual values.
“Today, Russia suffers an apparent deficit of spiritual values,” said Putin, as his Orthodox ally Patriarch Kirill nodded along.
The former KGB man continued: “We must wholeheartedly support the institutions that are the carriers of traditional values.”
So far, so Mother Russia.
What was interesting was that the president went on to say that it would be “amoral” to create laws governing spirituality. Putin commented ““Any attempts of the government to intervene with people’s beliefs are effectively a sign of totalitarian rule. It’s absolutely out of the question. It’s not our way.”
This would seem at odds with this week’s passing of a new blasphemy law, which will impose prison sentences and fines on people convicted of “public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the goal of offending religious feelings of the faithful”.
But it is in fact very much in the mould of the current trend for religious defamation law.
Traditionally, blasphemy was the crime of causing offence to God himself; now it is recast as causing offence to believers. Blasphemy laws are here to protect us. Look back at the testimony durings Pussy Riot’s trial, and again and again you hear the stories of poor innocent believers who were shocked by the women’s behaviour; even if the Patriarch and the president had wished to forgive the punk group, they had to think of the poor pious babushkas who had been rocked to the very core by an act that some admitted to not actually having witnessed.
Shamefully, Ireland has led the way in this trend. The Irish Defamation Act of 2009 established definitions and punishments for blasphemy where none had previously existed (in spite of the fact that the 1937 constitution recognised blasphemy as a crime, it did not define what blasphemy was, and thus, there had never been a conviction for blasphemy, or even a full trial, in the country).
The Irish law defines religious defamation as any action likely to cause “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion”, with fines of up to e25,000 payable by those found guilty.
The wording of the Irish bill was used as a template in the Organisation of Islamic Conference’s attempts to get the UN to recognise religious defamation as a crime.
Of course, the old-fashioned definitions of blasphemy still exist: in Egypt this week, writer Amer Saber was given a five-year sentence for “contempt of religion” for authoring a short story collection called “Where is God?”. And in Syria, a teenager was reportedly shot in front of his family merely for uttering the name of Muhammad. The abuses of blasphemy law in Pakistan are only too well known.
But the justification for blasphemy laws, as with many other censorious impulses, is increasingly tied up in the idea that people should be protected from offence, from controversy, even from being challenged.
Perhaps the most offensive notion is that we cannot deal with ideas, even aggressively expressed ideas, that we disagree with. Government’s such as Putin’s are all too happy to shut down free speech and repackage censorship as benign protection.
14 Jun 13 | Digital Freedom
Once labelled the “enemy of the internet” — Tunisia has made tremendous strides in the past two years towards opening up the internet. Still, the country continues to face challenges in its road to expanding freedom online. Afef Abrougui reports
Tunisia is scheduled to host the third annual Freedom Online Coalition conference next week (17-18 June). The country became part of the coalition in September 2012, joining 17 other countries pledged to advance internet freedom.
A great leap forward
In a press conference last September, Tunisia’s ICT minister Mongi Marzoug announced the end of online filtering — killing “Ammar 404” (the nickname given to the country’s filtering system by its netizens).
Just this month, CEO of the Tunisian Internet Agency (ATI) Moez Chakchouk announced that ATI won an appeal against filtering of adult content. The case dates back to May 2011, when a primary court ordered the agency to filter X-rated websites on the ground that they represent a “threat to minors and the values of Islam.” After losing the appeal in August 2011, the Cassation Court quashed the filtering verdict and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in February 2012.
“This is not about pornography; it’s a matter of principle. In post-revolutionary Tunisia, we are determined to break with the former regime’s censorship practices”, Chakchouk wrote for Index on Censorship magazine in December 2012.
Under the autocratic rule of now ousted President Zeine el Abidin Ben Ali, the ATI enforced government requests for content filtering — even though the country has never had a law requiring the agency to do so. The ATI’s recent win will only help reinforce its role as a neutral internet exchange point.
Threatened Freedom
Despite ending its filtering practises, internet freedom remains threatened by legislation inherited from the era of Tunisia’s dictatorship. For instance, laws that make ISPs liable for third-party content, obliging them to monitor and take down material deemed to violate public order and “good morals” remain on the books. While this particular law has not been enforced post-Ben Ali, other relics from Tunisia’s dictator days have been used to prosecute bloggers.
On 29 May, Hakim Ghanmi, author of the blog Warakat Tounsia, stood trial before a military court for a post he made on 10 April, critical of the administration of a military hospital in Gabes, a city in the south of Tunisia. Ghanmi alleged that his sister-in-law was denied medical treatment by the hospital director, despite having an appointment. The blogger has been accused of “undermining the reputation of the army” (article 91 of the Code of Military Justice), “disturbing others through public communication networks” (article 86 of the Telecommunications Code), and “defamation of a public official” (article 128 of the Penal Code) following a complaint lodged by the hospital director. He currently faces up to three years in prison, and his trial is set to resume on 3 July.
Last year, a court convicted Jabeur Mejri and Ghazi Beji to seven and a half years in prison over publishing content deemed to be offensive to Islam online, under article 86 of the Telecommunication Code, and article 121(3) of the Penal Code which bans the publication of content “liable to cause harm to the public order.” On 12 June, Courrier de l’Atlas reported that Beji, who was sentenced in absentia, has now obtained political asylum in France. Mejri, however, remains in prison after losing appeal at the Cassation Court on 26 April.
If Tunisia is serious about serving as a model of internet freedom in the region and guaranteeing freedom of expression, legal reforms are urgently needed. Adopting a constitution that enshrines free speech — in accordance with the country’s obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — is equally fundamental.
14 Jun 13 | Uncategorized
To be an artist today means facing some age-old restrictions — whether they are economic, or the controversies that arise from clashing with society’s norms and standards.Women, however, face specific challenges when it comes to artistic freedom. The UN Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights, Farida Shaheed, recently released a report that captured some of these challenges:
“Restrictions on artistic freedoms may target some categories of the population more specifically. Women artists and audiences are at particular risk in some communities, and are prohibited from performing arts altogether, from solo performances before mixed audiences, or from performing with men. In a number of countries, many women making a living as artists, or wishing to engage in artistic careers, particularly in the areas of cinema, theatre, dance and music, continue to be labelled as “loose” or “prostitutes.”
Shaheed also emphasises the importance of artists having their work in public spaces: “the Special Rapporteur is convinced that freedom of artistic expression and creativity cannot be dissociated from the right of all persons to enjoy the arts, as in many cases restrictions on artistic freedoms aim at denying people access to specific artworks. Hence removing creative expressions from public access is a way to restrict artistic freedom.”
Add in religious or conservative values — and that only makes things a bit more tricky. For female artists who are also Muslim, there can be enormous challenges in bringing their work to the public space, and there have been some projects aimed at amplifying the stories and works of Muslim women. Projects like the Birmingham-based Ulfah Arts targets faith-based communities, who aren’t as engaged with the arts, and other projects like like Muslima — created by the International Museum of Women — showcase the artworks of Muslim women around the world in a virtual exhibition.
In some cases, restrictions on artistic freedom aren’t a question of space, but rather problems with a community’s notions of honour and propriety. Norwegian artist Deeyah, who made a documentary about the 2006 “honour killing” of a young Kurdish woman called Banaz Mahmood, said in an interview with the Free Word Centre that the value placed on “honour” cripples the freedom of expression of women in communities where it is a form of social currency:
This collective sense of honour and shame has for centuries confined our movement, freedom of choice and restricted our autonomy. You cannot be who you are; you cannot express your needs, hopes and opinions as an individual if they are in conflict with the greater good and reputation of the family, the community, or the collective. If you grow up in a community defined by these patriarchal concepts of honour and social structures, these are the parameters you are expected to live by.
Index has asked three Muslim women to write about the challenges they’ve faced as artists:
I am Pakistani, and like many other Pakistanis around me, I was strongly encouraged to become a doctor — because doing so would grant me both social status and financial security. In my family, and for most other Pakistanis I know, daughters and sons are expected to take both their education and careers seriously. A career in art seemed like an impractical and even wasteful pursuit — because it is neither financially secure, nor is it viewed as respectable in many circles. To top it all off, I had also had to consider whether or not I was risking eternal damnation by painting portraits (frowned upon by some Muslims). Before I began painting Muslim women, I was encouraged to explore my religious background through my art, and even capitalise on it, because Islam is currently the site of a controversial and political debate. But what I noticed is that the demand that exists is for images of Muslim women that illustrate the already existing narrative in the West. Through my work, I try to give a nuanced image based in truth, without passing judgment — which is a much harder sell, even though those are the stories about women that we need to experience.
Saba Barnard, painter
Being Muslim and deaf, and coming from a culture (Indian/South Asian) where family pressure is a big part of creating one’s future, I constantly struggle as an artist, writer, and filmmaker. Previously I’ve faced opposition from my parents, who did not want me to participate in the performing arts. Fortunately they have come around and now they support me, but they still don’t understand my passion for the arts — which is my driving force. They do not understand that my life is about creating art, breathing the air of Mother Earth, and thanking Goddess (Allah). I have faced hostility and rejection from dominantly white and western theatres and film festivals uninterested in my female-centric, woman of colour, deaf-perspective stories, films, and expressions. I never know if my works are rejected because I am Muslim, or if they’re rejected because a deaf woman of colour’s stories are so alien and foreign to the people considering them. There are fewer deaf people than Muslims — and I guess my perspective is very alien in many ways, but it doesn’t help to have my voice kept out of the mainstream. Rejection especially hurts, because my background isn’t really represented — and it would surely be a break from the white males who seem to constantly receive praise and space for uninspiring, homogenous crap. There’s also resistance from other Muslims (usually Muslim males) who think that I should shut up, be quiet, and not be seen or heard. I am so tired of it all. Now, I just do my own things and I publish my works through my own channels. That way, I can keep writing, creating, performing, filming what I want — and no one can silence or reject me.
Sabina England, filmmaker & stage performance artist
The two biggest restrictions placed on Muslim women wanting to enter the arts are the reactions of the community to the arts, and self-censorship. For example, while most of the reactions to my play about a Muslim girl finding “the one” were positive, one female friend made her disapproval clear to me. She said, for a “Muslim girl”, I shouldn’t have written such a play — because it’s forbidden to talk about sex before marriage openly. This is all the more reason why we should write about it — it’s an expression of opinion. There’s also a double standard: when Muslim males write about sex, it’s OK. But as soon as a Muslim woman writes about sex, she is labelled a “slut.” And it’s because of this judgment that many choose self-censorship instead of speaking up. Shouldn’t the arts be about being true to oneself? I don’t want to be labelled for writing about religion, politics, and terrorism. There’s more to me than these three things. Even with pressure, Muslim women are slowly overcoming these restrictions — but communities need to be more open-minded. Hopefully, Muslim women can eventually be judged solely for the work, rather than what’s “expected.”
Mediah Ahmed, playwright
14 Jun 13 | In the News
GLOBAL
Q&A: “Media Concentration Is an Attack on Democracy”
“We have to understand that information, above all else, is a social service. If we lose sight of that dimension we begin to regulate it as merchandise, but the state has many other obligations, such as to guarantee freedom,” said Frank La Rue.
(European Daily Express)
AFRICA
MFWA Highlights Major Threats to Press Freedom in West Africa
Armed conflicts, violent activities of fundamentalist groups and drug cartels and general intolerance for free expression among a number of governments have been highlighted as major threats to the advancement of press freedom in the West African region.
(AllAfrica.com)
AUSTRALIA
Success for Vivid but lingering fears over censorship
Vivid festival has ended as a spectacular success with a record-breaking attendance in Sydney, but behind the scenes the relationship between the popular event and photojournalism festival Reportage has soured amid accusations of censorship and breaches of contract.
(The Guardian)
IRAN
Hacker Says Iranian Censorship Can Be Bypassed
An Israeli hacker says it’s easy to bypass the tight Iranian government censorship wrapped around media and the Internet as 50 million citizens head for the polls this Friday.
(Arutz Sheva 7)
Iran’s presidential vote not free, fair: UN rights envoy
Iran’s presidential election has been neither free nor fair as Tehran has silenced journalists and opposition leaders in the run up to Friday’s vote, a United Nations human rights investigator said in Spain. Ahmed Shaheed, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, warned in March that he was concerned that the outcome of the election would lack legitimacy because dozens of Iranian journalists were behind bars and hundreds of political prisoners remained in custody.
(Business Recorder)
RUSSIA
New Russian Law Makes Publication of Information on Gay Rights Illegal
On June 11 the Russian parliament passed a bill against “homosexual propaganda” that effectively outlaws gay rights rallies and bans informational or pro-gay rights material from publication in the media or on the Internet. Violators of the law will risk heavy fines and censorship and, in the case of a media outlet, risk being shut down. It had near unanimous support, passing in a 436-to-0 vote, with only one abstention.
(Tech President)
UNITED KINGDOM
LRC keeps up pressure on libel reform
Finance Minister Sammy Wilson’s decision to veto a law to strengthen protections on free speech has been vigorously defended by the DUP, following fresh criticism.
(The Bookseller)
Yesterday, an MP stood up in parliament and threatened a newspaper with censorship. Where’s the outrage?
Imagine if an MP stood up in parliament and told, say, an anarchist magazine to stop publishing cartoons mocking government officials. Imagine if that MP then said that if the magazine didn’t comply with this request, the government would “step in and legislate” in order to physically and brutally prevent it from publishing the offending material. There’d be outrage, right?
(The Telegragh)
DUP defends libel law veto
Finance Minister Sammy Wilson’s decision to veto a law to strengthen protections on free speech has been vigorously defended by the DUP, following fresh criticism.
(News Letter)
Twitter: #FreeSpeech or #EthicalCleansing?
There has been a storm of somewhat overblown hysteria about the US and UK authorities secretly spying on citizens’ private emails and postings on social-media websites. Yet there is far less debate about a much more open attempt to police free speech online in the UK, through the public pursuit, arrest and prosecution of those deemed to have said something offensive or outrageous on Twitter or Facebook.
(Spiked)
UK libel reform fight ‘isn’t over yet’
British scientists should not celebrate victory in their libel reform fight just yet, according to the campaigners who have spent years pushing for change.
(Nature)
UNITED STATES
The worst crimes against the First Amendment
Since 1992, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has celebrated the birth and ideals of its namesake by calling attention to those who in the past year forgot or disregarded Jefferson’s admonition that freedom of speech “cannot be limited without being lost.”
(Missoula Independent)
Freedom of Speech Lives On
“Holding Colleges Responsible” is the latest example in a slew of articles – many of them quoting the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education – that are meant to alarm anyone with a voice, and the author’s use of selective quotes out of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights’s response to FIRE only fans the flame.
(Inside Higher Ed)
How Colleges Label Protected Speech as ‘Harassment’–And Why the DOJ and ED Have Made Matters Worse
One would think the Departments of Justice and Education would be mindful of citizens’ constitutional rights. Unfortunately, recent developments fly in the face of that assumption: New regulations from the DOJ and ED significantly harm student and faculty free speech rights.
(Huffington Post)
Ban on “gruesome images” threatens free speech
For those of us who worry about the vitality of free speech in the “land of the free,” the news this week isn’t good. On June 10, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a Colorado appeals court decision banning anti-abortion activists from displaying “gruesome images” of mutilated fetuses that might be seen by children.
(GazetteXtra)
Atheist group sues Orange schools, claiming censorship
An atheist group that distributed pamphlets in 11 Orange County high schools last month filed a lawsuit today against Orange County Public Schools, claiming censorship.
(Orlando Sentinel)
Obscenity is protected free speech, NY attorneys say
A 22-year-old Connecticut man arrested for writing obscenities and “Tyranny” on his speeding ticket payment claims in a federal lawsuit that his free speech rights were violated.
(WHAM 13)
Gov. Rick Perry: ‘Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion’
Current Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry attacked nonreligious Americans during a signing of the “Merry Christmas” bill this week, insinuating that Americans don’t have the right to be secular.
(Examiner)
13 Jun 13 | Europe and Central Asia
A resolution that was adopted today in Geneva extends the mandate of Miklos Haraszti, a Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in Belarus, for one more year. Andrei Aliaksandrau reports
The UN Human Rights Council expressed its “deep concern at continuing violations of human rights in Belarus, which are of a structural and endemic nature, and also at the systemic and systematic restrictions on human rights, especially in the case of the freedoms of association, of assembly, and of opinion and expression, as well as the guarantees of due process and fair trial.”
The Council strongly urged the Belarusian government to “immediately and unconditionally release and rehabilitate all political prisoners, and to rehabilitate those who have already been released, to address, through comprehensive, transparent and credible investigations, reports of torture and ill-treatment by law-enforcement officials, and to put an immediate end to the arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and political opponents, arbitrary travel bans and other policies aimed at intimidating representatives of the political opposition and the media, as well as human rights defenders and civil society.”
Related: The first rule of dictator club…
The resolution extends the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in Belarus and urges the government of the country to cooperate fully with the Miklos Haraszti, including by providing him access to visit Belarus. Previously, he was denied a visa to enter the country, and it is likely still to be the case in future. Mikhail Khvostov, the Permanent Representative of Belarus to the UN Office in Geneva, reiterated just before the voting that Belarus does not recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. He also described the resolution proposed by the European Union as an “act of aggression against the United Nations,” BelaPAN News Agency reported.
Twenty-six countries voted in favour of the resolution, while three countries voted against it and 18 more abstained. The attempts of delegations of several “like-minded” states to prevent a critical resolution on Belarus, failed.
“This is a significant resolution that allows keeping the alarming human rights situation in Belarus in focus of international community. I hope the authorities of the country change their aggressive attitude towards the Special Rapporteur and start cooperating with him to bring positive changes to the situation,” Tatsiana Raviaka, a representative of the Human Rights Centre “Viasna”, told Index.
13 Jun 13 | China, Digital Freedom
China has censored an image of Winnie the Pooh strolling with Tigger, after it went viral on popular Chinese microblogging site, Sina Weibo.
The image was circulated after bloggers noticed the similarities between a photo snapped this week of President Barack Obama and Chinese premier Xi Jinping and an illustration of the cartoon characters.
China’s censors are known for their lack of a sense of humour: earlier this month, censors deleted a photoshopped version of a famous picture showing a single protester standing before a row of tanks in Tiananmen Square, where the tanks were replaced with large rubber ducks.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index. She tweets from @missyasin
13 Jun 13 | Digital Freedom
Attempts to harvest Iranian users web details may be politically motivated, says the Internet giant. Sara Yasin reports
(more…)
13 Jun 13 | Media Freedom, United Kingdom
Lord Lester of Herne Hill, one of the UK’s most celebrated human rights lawyers, has slammed the government’s proposed Royal Charter on press regulation, saying he doubted it would “pass muster” under the Human Rights Act.
(more…)
