22 Dec 20 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”115932″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]As part of the launch of the new Index on Censorship magazine, which looks at the underreported stories of the last year, we will explore what has been happening in Poland and Slovenia when it comes to our freedoms. Two experts from those countries will tell us what life is currently like on the ground.
Anuška Delić is the founder of Oštro, Center for investigative journalism in the Adriatic region. She is a Balkans regional editor at OCCRP, and a member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Katarzyna Kasia is a philosopher, author and assistant professor at the Academy of Fine Arts, Warsaw. Index on Censorship magazine editor and head of content Jemimah Steinfeld will be chairing the conversation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Wednesday 20 January 2021, 14:30 to 15:30
Where: ONLINE
Tickets: Free, advance booking essential
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Dec 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115928″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]In the middle of the night on 28 November, 32 Cuban artists emerged from a five-hour meeting with officials of the Ministry of Culture. They had called on the Cuban government to refrain from harassing independent artists, to stop treating dissent as a crime, and to cease its violence against the San Isidro Movement, a group of artists and activists that had staged a hunger strike to protest the arrest and sentencing of a young rapper. The news of the encounter was shared with a crowd of about 300 artists, writers, actors and filmmakers who had stood outside for more than 12 hours to pressure ministers to open their doors. Nothing like this had ever happened before on the island.
Cubans may complain about food shortages and other restrictions on their lives, but members of elite professions rarely stick their necks out to defend anyone that the state labels a dissident. It is unheard of to exhort Cuban officials to listen to their most vocal critics in person. Although the artists of the San Isidro Movement were known to many, harassment of the group had not generated a major outcry. But in the past three years the Cuban government has issued laws imposing restrictions on independent art, music, filmmaking, and journalism, incurring the anger of many creators. When they saw live streamed videos of the weakened hunger strikers being attacked by security agents disguised as health workers, they decided that enough was enough.
“This is the first time that artists and intellectuals in Cuba are challenging the constitution,” said Cuban historian Rafael Rojas in a radio broadcast. “Their emphasis on freedom of expression and association challenges the legal, constitutional, and institutional limits of the Cuban political system.” In an interview with journalist Jorge Ramos, artist Tania Bruguera said the uprising started because, “a group of Cuban artists have gotten tired of putting up with being abused, harassed and pursued by police because of their political views and for their independence from state institutions.”
Within 48 hours, the Cuban government began to renege on verbal promises made at the meeting not to harass the protesters. President Diaz-Canel, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, Minister of Culture Alpidio Alonso, and Casa de las Americas director Abel Prieto all tweeted defamatory statements about the protesters. Cuban state television aired several programmes lambasting the San Isidro Movement, Tania Bruguera, and journalist Carlos Manuel Alvarez as mercenaries paid by the USA to destabilise the revolution. Bruguera and Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara were threatened by state security and detained for walking outside. Police blocked off and guarded the street where the Ministry of Culture is located. Several activists and independent journalists were placed under house arrest. Police shut down the headquarters of INSTAR, Tania Bruguera’s International Institute of Artivism. The San Isidro Movement was accused on Cuban television of breaking the windows of a hard currency store, but it was soon revealed that the man who committed the act was an agent provocateur working for Cuban police.
The protests come at a moment when the Cuban government has been shaken by the colossal loss of tourism revenue during the pandemic, the dwindling support from Venezuela, and the tightening of the US trade embargo during the Trump years. It was a sign of weakness that officials ceded to the demand for a face-to-face encounter with protesters.
But the state’s reaction is not surprising. Cultural Ministry officials are expected to respond to the demands of the Communist Party and State Security, not to citizens organised outside state sanctioned organisations. The slanderous campaigns on state television and social media are intimidation tactics aimed at preventing more Cubans from rising up. And it is also not unusual for the Cuban government to clamp down on dissent during economic downturns, as happened after the failed 10-million-ton harvest in 1971 and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
What is extraordinary is that young Cuban intellectuals and artists have chosen to air their grievances publicly and collectively, and to support each other regardless of divergent political opinions. They have not been seduced by promises of favourable treatment from the state in exchange for silence, nor are they succumbing to the self-doubt that police states are so adept at inculcating in the citizenry. Most importantly, despite persistent police harassment, they are not giving up. They have adopted a name–27N–in commemoration of the day they first came together. A few members of the San Isidro Movement are part of 27N, but the group also includes representatives of other cultural fields that participated in the mass protest. 27N has formed subcommittees to attend to various tasks, from media relations to visual documentation to legal consultations.
27N continues to prepare for the next session with officials. They posted an initial list of demands in an online petition: political freedom for all Cubans, the release of the rapper Denis Solís, the cessation of state repression of artists and journalists who think differently, the cessation of defamatory media campaigns against independent artists, journalists and activists because of their political views, and the right to and respect for independence. On 27 November, Cuban officials promised a second meeting, but on 4 December the Ministry of Culture terminated the dialogue due to an “insolent” email from the protesters, who had requested to have a lawyer present and asked that harassment against them cease. Instead, the Ministry convened a meeting with small group of artists that were deemed to be loyal to the revolution. A 27N meeting at the Institute of Artivismo (INSTAR) in Havana.
The retreat may have been a result of orders from higher ranking officials as famous Cuban folk singer Silvio Rodriguez suggested. Rodriguez, considered by many to be an apologist for the regime, nonetheless understands that the officials in the cultural ministry were engaging in a defensive, though morally illegitimate, political move.
It is not surprising that prominent but independently minded Cuban artists and intellectuals such as singers Carlos Varela and Haydee Milanés have voiced support for the protesters. But it was nothing short of astonishing that the regional chapters of the Union of Cuban Artists and Writers (La Unión de Escritores y Artistas de Cuba, UNEAC) and the Hermanos Saíz Brigade on the Island of Pines posted a message of solidarity with the San Isidro Movement on 7 December on Facebook, decrying the Cuban government’s defamatory campaigns, writing on Facebook, “We will not advance toward a dialogue and mutual respect by resorting to dismissive insults.” Cuba’s political culture does not embrace public expressions of dissent within its ranks, nor do regional representatives of organization tend to speak out about activities in the capital.
Changes in Cuban culture played a significant role in the November 27 protest. For the young Cubans who rose up in rebellion, their smartphones are weapons they use both to inform and defend themselves. The legalisation of cell phone possession in 2008 and the opening of phone-based internet access in 2018 utterly transformed Cuban public discourse. Young Cubans use Facebook as an alternative public sphere in which to share news, air grievances, galvanise support for causes and cast aspersions on their leaders. Official state media has been upstaged. Cuba’s leaders are being thrust into arguments with disgruntled citizens on social media – and their responses are undignified to say the least. The Cuban government tries to block access to opposition media, but young Cubans fight back with VPN networks and mirror sites. In her daily podcast, Yoani Sánchez explains to listeners how to use a VPN. Dozens of independent journalism publications and streaming channels have blossomed on the internet, providing Cubans with news and views that would never appear in state media.
Communication between Cuban exiles and islanders is fluid and constant, signalling a complete breakdown of the state’s effort to drive a wedge between those inside and outside the country. Cubans have grown more emboldened by being able to see what others like them do and by witnessing what the state does to other Cubans. WhatsApp chats facilitate the creation of organisations based on special interests, including Cuban doctors on medical missions who share information about the oppressive labour conditions and constant surveillance they experience. The island now has independent animal rights groups, LGBTQ groups, feminist groups and anti-racist groups, all of which have organised smaller protests in recent years using social media.
The Cuban government continues to dismiss all forms of dissent on the island as the works of mercenaries trained, financed and mobilised by the United States government as part of a long-term regime change strategy. More than a few progressives outside Cuba parrot that rhetoric or at least feel obligated to prioritise their condemnation of US policies over concerns about Cubans’ civil rights. Many Cubans and Cuban-Americans, myself included, would argue that it is a mistake to rationalise or diminish the Cuban government’s repression of civil liberties and blame the embargo for the government’s stance toward its citizens. While USAID has awarded $16,569,889 for Cuba pro-democracy efforts since 2017, including financing of some of the opposition media, not all Cuban media beyond the island government’s control was invented by the CIA, nor is all Cubans’ opposition to their government a product of American meddling. Cubans do not need the United States to “help” them develop critical views of their government. “Anger rather than fear is the widespread sentiment among Cubans—a constant, built-in discomfort,” writes Carlos Manuel Alvarez. “We’re fed up with blind, doctrinaire zeal. Navigating Communism is like trying to cross a cobblestone road in high heels, trying not to fall, feigning normalcy. Some of us end up twisting our ankles.”
Most complaints of police repression, domestic violence, animal mistreatment, food shortages and poor public services in Cuba come from ordinary Cuban citizens who post their grievances on Facebook. No American planes are dropping leaflets from the sky to provide instructions. Cuban exiles send billions of dollars to relatives and friends each year, and much of that money pays for cell phones, internet, computers and other tech equipment that allow islanders to send and receive information. Important opposition media outlets, such as 14yMedio and CiberCuba, are entirely privately financed. Tania Bruguera and Yoani Sanchez have made a point of not accepting any funding from the US government, and savvy musicians and filmmakers use crowd funding campaigns to support their projects. The bulk of US State Department funding for Cuba-related activities stays in Miami, where media companies, publishers and cultural promoters can operate freely.
Cuban citizens may have limited legal rights, but they do not lack agency; they choose to apply for foreign grants or to work for media outlets funded by American sources. I do not make these points because I favour US-backed regime change – I am arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics that are leading to more frequent, more visible and more organised protests in Cuba. I am also arguing against the Cuban government’s position that does not differentiate between a CIA-financed assassin and an independent journalist who writes a brilliant essay about Cuba’s public health system, or an artist who recites poetry outside a police station.
The recent confrontation at the Ministry of Culture raised the hopes of many Cubans around the world. It also generated skepticism from those who say that dialogue with the Cuban government is futile, and that artists don’t have the knowhow to bring about political change. It’s worth recalling that the Charter 77 civic movement in former Czechoslovakia started in response to the arrest of a psychedelic rock band. The myth of Cuba as a political utopia is the revolution’s jugular: it draws tourist dollars and foreign aid, but its claim to truth is undermined by the harsh lived realities of 11 million citizens. Cuban artists and intellectuals have been enjoined to sustain that myth for 60 years. Their collective refusal to do now is a clear sign that change is on the horizon.
Coco Fusco is an artist and writer and the author of Dangerous Moves: Performance and Politics in Cuba (Tate Publications, 2015). She is a professor at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
This article was originally publishing in the North American Congress on Latin America here. Some minor alterations have been made to conform to Index house style[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Dec 20 | Iran, Media Freedom, Middle East and North Africa, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115908″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Yesterday, for the first time, the team at Index suspended its normal social media engagement. We stopped highlighting each attack on free speech around the world. We stopped giving comment on emerging events. Instead for 24 hours, we tweeted, on the hour, every hour, about one man – Ruhollah Zam.
We did this because Ruhollah’s story exemplifies why Index on Censorship exists. And because we are heartbroken at his death.
Ruhollah was executed by his government, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
His “crime” was to be journalist and a human rights activist – running an alternative news channel which criticised the Government. A brave and honourable endeavour.
Ruhollah’s “crime” was to exercise his rights as stated in Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. For the record, Iran was an original signatory to the UN DHR. When they signed the declaration in 1948 they committed to a world where all of us have basic human rights. On Saturday, they ignored this commitment.
Ruhollah was killed by his government. He was hanged. He was silenced.
Please take a few minutes today to read about Ruhollah’s life – as with all of us he was more than his job title. He was a son, a husband and a father. His life touched literally hundreds of thousands of people because of his activism. His death must reach millions.
The Iranian execution of Ruhollah Zam is a stark reminder of why Index was launched nearly 50 years ago. We were established to shine a light on repressive regimes, to ensure that attacks on free expression were documented and to provide a home for the writings of dissidents when they couldn’t publish in the countries of their birth.
Ruhollah Zam embodied the fight for free expression and a free press. It’s now down to us to live up to his legacy and make sure that journalists, activists, artists, academics and writers know that they have a home and that someone is making sure that their voices are heard – even when they are incarcerated.
Ruhollah Zam, 27 July 1978 – 12 December 2020
May His Memory Be A Blessing
[/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]
16 Dec 20 | Iran, Iraq, Media Freedom, Middle East and North Africa, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115898″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
On Saturday 12 December, the founder of the Telegram news channel Amadnews, Ruhollah Zam, was hanged in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison.
Zam was born in Shahr-e-Rey, just outside Tehran, in 1978. He first came to prominence in 2009 after the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he was jailed for voicing his opposition.
In 2011, after his release from prison, Zam, together with his wife and young daughter Niaz fled the country and were granted asylum in France, living initially in Paris before moving to a small town near Toulouse after he received threats.
Two and a half years ago, Zam co-founded the Amadnews channel on Telegram, which is hugely popular in Iran – it has 50 million users there and was reported at one point to account for 60% of the country’s entire internet usage.
Amadnews became popular for its criticism of Iran’s leaders and informed descriptions on the 2017 protests, which started as a protest against the economic policies of the government before developing into wider protests against Iran’s leaders. Twenty-five people died during the nationwide protests.
The channel grew quickly to have a million subscribers but at the end of 2017 Telegram shut it down saying the channel had called for armed uprisings. The channel reappeared under a new same, Sedaiemardom (voice of the people), just a few months later.
The story of how he even came to be in Iran again is mysterious.
In 2019, it is believed that he was lured to Iraq from his exile in France to meet the grand Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shia Muslims. While there, he was captured by agents of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps which issued a statement saying he had been detained “in a complicated operation”.
The statement said: “Despite being under the guidance of the French intelligence service and the support of the US and Zionist intelligence services…, and being guarded round the clock by various means and covers, he fell into a trap laid by… the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization.”
He was thrown into Evin prison and tortured for months and forced to make televised confessions of his ‘crimes’.
In June this year, Zam was tried in front of the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Tehran, presided over by Judge Abolqasem Salav and convicted on 13 counts of “spreading corruption on earth”. He was sentenced to death.
Despite going to appeal, on 8 December, the supreme court announced it had upheld the death sentence.
Zam’s father, the moderate cleric Mohammad Ali Zam, has revealed on Instagram what happened after the sentence was confirmed.
Last Friday, he was telephoned by an Iranian intelligence agent who said he could come and visit his son in the notorious Evin prison but not to tell him that the sentence for execution had been confirmed. His father reports that during the visit the family started to cry and the agent was afraid that Ruhollah might find out why and told him.
“Don’t worry Ruhollah. These are happy tears from visiting you. Even if the execution is confirmed, the process would take a while to be carried out and we will inform you of the whole process.”
On Saturday 12 December at 8am French time, his eldest daughter Niaz received a WhatsApp call from a number she didn’t recognise. It was her father.
They talked about her studies and getting her diploma but after five minutes the call had to end and her father said goodbye. There was a finality in his tone and Niaz knew this would be the last time they would speak.
Just a few hours later, Zam was paraded in front of television cameras and hanged.
There has been widespread condemnation of his execution.
United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement, “The international community must continue to hold the regime accountable for its unconscionable actions…The Iranian people deserve a free and diverse media, not censorship, arrests, and the execution of journalists.”
The European Union said it “condemns this act in the strongest terms and recalls once again its irrevocable opposition to the use of capital punishment under any circumstances. It is also imperative for the Iranian authorities to uphold the due process rights of accused individuals and to cease the practice of using televised confessions to establish and promote their guilt.”
Masih Alinejad, author of The Wind in My Hair: My Fight for Freedom in Modern Iran and who had campaigned to prevent the execution of young Iranian wrestler Navid Afkari, told Index, “By killing Zam, the Islamic Republic has shown that it is not interested in diplomacy. It is ironic that Zam was named after Rohallah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, an evil system that is not willing to tolerate dissent from journalists. Zam was a media pioneer who created the most influential news channel in recent memory.”
Javaid Rehman, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Agnes Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said: “The conviction and execution of Mr Zam are unconscionable. The reports of his arrest, his treatment in detention, and the process of his trial, as well as the reasons for his targeting by the Iranian authorities, are a serious violation of Iran’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to life.
“It is clear that Ruhollah Zam was executed for expressing opinions and providing information on AmadNews that dissented from the official views of the Iranian Government.”
Index on Censorship’s CEO Ruth Smeeth has written a letter to the UN Secretary General condemning Zam’s murder.
She wrote: “Press freedom is a pillar of democracy. When journalists are targeted, all of society pays the price. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression to all…As a journalist, as a human rights activist, as a global citizen Ruhollah Zam should have been protected by the state of his birth, not murdered by them.”
Ruhollah Zam is survived by his wife Mahsa Razani and their two daughters.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Dec 20 | Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Open letter to Mr António Guterres, United Nations Secretary–General
Thursday, 17th December 2020
Dear Mr Secretary-General,
In October you addressed the European Broadcast Union and stated:
“Press Freedom is a pillar of democracy. When journalists are targeted, all of society pays the price. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression to all.
I wish to assure you of my strong commitment to defend those rights and, at a time when journalists face growing harassment and attacks in so many parts of the world, to ensure that journalists have the safety and civic space to carry out your essential mission.”
It is this spirit that I write to you today. On Saturday 12 December, a member of the UN General Assembly and a signatory of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Islamic Republic of Iran, executed a journalist in cold blood, Ruhollah Zam. His apparent crime was “Corruption on Earth”, or rather being a leading dissident against the Government. As a journalist, as a human rights activist, as a global citizen Ruhollah Zam should have been protected by the state of his birth, not murdered by them.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented a further 14 cases of journalists being imprisoned this year in Iran. This is in addition to those who have been incarcerated for exercising their rights under Article 19 in previous years and remain imprisoned. This is an outright attack on our collective right to free speech and free expression.
We call on the United Nations to live up to its promises and demand members operate within both the letter and the spirit of the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
Yours sincerely,
Ruth Smeeth
Chief Executive, Index on Censorship[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Dec 20 | News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Today, Tuesday, the British government has finally responded to its own consultation on Online Harms. Our role at Index on Censorship is to defend free expression and free speech for all citizens wherever they live. This includes in the UK.
Index has significant concerns about the government’s proposals and their unintended consequences on our collective right to free speech. We are concerned about the global impact of these proposals and the message that is being sent by the British government – by instituting restrictive policies for social media companies – to repressive regimes who relentlessly seek to undermine the rights of their citizens.
While acknowledging that there are problems with regulation of online platforms, Index will be engaging with policy makers to try and make this legislation better in protecting our right to free expression.
Our key concerns are:
- Legal but harmful
The British government is proposing a new classification of speech. Legal but harmful content, such as abuse, would be deemed illegal online but would be perfectly acceptable offline. A lack of consistency in our legal framework for speech is ludicrous and would have significant unintended consequences.
- Emphasis on the platforms not the perpetrators
The penalties outlined in these proposals focus on the role of the platforms to regulate their online spaces – not their customers who seemingly have limited personal responsibility. It also fails to acknowledge that this is a cultural problem and therefore needs a carrot as well as a stick.
- No one is going to be fined for deleting too much content
The proposals will fine social media companies for not complying with the new regulatory framework. Although ministers have issued warm words about protecting freedom of speech it seems highly unlikely that a platform would be sanctioned for deleting too much content, leaving social media companies to always err of the side of caution and delete challenging content even if it isn’t contravening the legislation.
- Digital evidence locker
These proposals seemingly advocate the permanent removal of significant amounts of content, thus curtailing a victim’s ability to prosecute, as once deleted by a platform there is no way to retrieve the content even by law enforcement. This includes evidence of terrorism atrocities; 23% of the Syrian War Crime Archive has already been deleted by the platforms. The lack of legal protections in place for the platforms to store this content (out of sight) for access by law enforcement, journalists and academics results in a lack of prosecution and analysis. Index believes a compromise would be the creation of a legal framework to allow social media platforms to create Digital Evidence Lockers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Dec 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Justice for Assange campaign protester outside a court hearing in 2010. Photograph: Nadia Cosentino
Assange’s partner, Stella Moris, is remaining resolute despite his extradition hearing decision being less than a month away and him being held in a prison that has recently had a Covid-19 outbreak.
Speaking over the phone to Index, Moris discusses the hearing’s details and what it could mean for the future of freedom of expression. And she talks about the deep implications it has had for her and her young family.
“Obviously it is very difficult. I speak to Julian on a daily basis unless there is a problem. [But] he is in prison. Soon to be for two years. He has been there for longer than many violent prisoners who are serving sentences. All in all, he has been deprived of his liberty for ten years now,” she told Index. She adds:
“The kids speak to their father every day; we try to normalise it as much as we can for them. But of course, this is not a normal situation and our lives are on hold. It is inhumane and shouldn’t be happening in the UK.”
The current hearing – which will decide whether there are grounds for Assange to stand trial in the USA – should reach a conclusion on 4 January. A trial in the USA (should the decision go against Assange) will have major ramifications for free speech and whistleblower journalism.
The WikiLeaks founder is charged with conspiring with US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning and hackers from groups such as Anonymous and LulzSec to obtain and publish classified information. Each of the 18 charges laid by US authorities, if Assange is extradited and convicted, carry a maximum penalty of 10 years. The allegations brought forward under the 1917 Espionage Act, alongside one other under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, mean Assange could face up to 175 years in prison – effectively a life sentence. Manning was initially sentenced to 35 years, but under the Obama administration her sentence was commuted to less than seven years.
It is easy to get sidetracked about the current extradition hearing and get into arguments about whether Assange is a journalist, whether he is guilty of other crimes or whether the publication of the documents brought harm to anyone involved. Instead people’s attentions should focus on the precedent that will be set should the case go to trial in the USA.
As it stands the case is unprecedented. No publisher has ever been tried under the Espionage Act, which itself was essentially created for spies imparting official secrets either for profit or otherwise. This is perhaps a direct contradiction of rulings of the courts in the UK. In December 2017, the UK’s information tribunal recognised WikiLeaks as a media organisation, in direct contradiction to the view of the US State Department. Australia’s media union, the Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance, also presented an honorary member card to Assange’s Melbourne-based lawyer.
Amidst the noise of the separate matters around the case, Moris insists people need to “forget what they think they know” and assess the issues involved.
“There are a lot of assumptions being made over what this case is really about. There are all these sideshows. It is not about people being harmed because the US has admitted it has no evidence to make this argument. It comes down to the fact that the material published was classified. People who care about free speech and press freedom need to forget what they think they know about this case and look at it afresh and understand Julian is in prison for publishing. This is not something that democracies do.”
“Are they saying what he published was not in the public interest? They say that is irrelevant. They can’t deny [what he published] wasn’t in the public interest because he was publishing information and evidence of state crimes, of state abuse, torture, of rendition, blacksites and of illegal killings. What they are arguing is that Julian published information that was secret and therefore he can be prosecuted over it.”
Journalists publishing secret information is not new (nor is pressure for them not to publish) and can often be key to upholding democracy and ensuring states act properly. The Watergate revelations relied heavily on news organisations pressing on with publication despite attempts by the USA to stop them, including the threat of jail time. It proved a significant victory for free speech.
If Assange is extradited and tried the case will impact journalists and the media “for years to come”, says Rebecca Vincent, director of international campaigns at Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
“It feels like many in the media do not see the implications of this case as something that will possibly affect them,” she told Index. “This case will have ramifications on the climates for journalism and press freedom internationally for years to come.”
“This is the first time we have seen the US government prosecute anybody for publishing leaked information. If they are successful, they will not stop with Assange and WikiLeaks. This could be applied, in theory, to any media outlet.”
It’s common for journalists and publishers to cite a public interest defence for disputed documents. It is a centrepiece of a defence case against libel, for instance.
“The information published was certainly in the public interest; it served to inform extensive public interest reporting that exposed war crimes and other illegal actions by states,” said Vincent.
“The Espionage Act lacks a public interest defence. He cannot use it if he is sent to the United States and tried.”
Essentially, what this means is that Assange is being treated as a spy not a publisher. If Assange is extradited and loses his case against the US government, any time classified information is published by a journalist there will be a precedent set that they can be charged and tried as a spy in the same way.
“These sorts of cases are really highlighting the need for more robust legislation that cannot be manipulated to be used against journalists, whistleblowers and other sources. Ultimately, it is the public’s right to access information that is being impacted,” Vincent added.
“You can see this for what it is; this very much feels like a political prosecution by states that are not meant to engage in this behaviour. The reason our states can get away with this is because of a lack of public pressure. A lack of public sympathy has resulted in a lack of widespread public pressure to hold our governments to account.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 Dec 20 | Volume 49.04 Winter 2020
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Special report “][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Another explosion for Lebanon by Zahra Hankir and Kareem Chehayeb: The blast in Beirut made international headlines. Even before that the nation was in turmoil and it has only worsened the mental health crisis
Who will report on Nicaragua? by Jemimah Steinfeld: Bianca Jagger tells Index a clampdown on dissent and independent media is reaching new heights
Remembering Rex Cornelio by Ryan Macasero: Months on from the murder of Philippines radio host Rex Cornelio we speak to those who knew him about his bravery and his awful death
Royally silenced by Pavin Chachavalpongpun: As students campaign against lèse-majesté laws, the Thai exile and royal critic with a Facebook group of two million followers considers their fate
Another black day for Poland by Katarzyna Kasia: The attack on women’s reproductive rights caused mass protests. Duda’s re-election gave it legitimacy
Tearing down the ivory tower by Kaya Genç: Amidst the noise of the pandemic, a thriving Istanbul university was shut down with litle outcry
Ganging up against the truth by Chris Havler-Barrett: El Salvador’s government do not want you to hear about a potential deal they’ve made with the country’s biggest gang
Mexico’s deadliest state by Stephen Woodman: The government’s promise to protect journalists from harm is failing. Just look at the state of Veracruz
Europe’s new Orban by Anuška Delić: Janez Janša, Slovenia’s new prime minister, is mirroring the extreme policies of his Hungarian counterpart
Democracy vs the people by Andy Morgan: Mali has seen a government coup following escalating protests. What has caused the unrest?
“The state won’t protest you” by Natasha Joseph: The death of Robert Mugabe brought so much hope, but improvements to daily life have not come for Zimbabweans. Far from it
Dying for the mother tongue by Uradyn E Bulag: Why have people in Inner Mongolia recently taken their lives?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Global view “][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Hey, big brother – we’re watching you by Ruth Smeeth: We will fight louder and harder for those whose governments have taken away their freedoms[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”In focus”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Long march towards cultural genocide by Nick Holdstock: As news emerges of the present horrors happening in Xinjiang, an expert on the region looks at its recent history
How to challenge China by Tom Tugendhat, Lokman Tsui, Rushan Abbas & Anne-Marie Brady: How do we make a global power sit up and take notice? These experts offer advice
Abuse not part of journalists’ day job by Fréderike Geerdink: A reporter in the Netherlands has won a landmark case against her online harassers
Two faces of On Liberty by John Gray: Liberal institutions are becoming more censorial. Is the philosopher John Stuart Mill to blame?
Out with the old? by Robert Speel: Donald Trump’s conduct during and after the election appeared extraordinary, but a look at US history challenges that
The Sudanese revolution will be illustrated by Abraham Zere: A profile of Khalid Albaih, the political cartoonist dubbed “an enemy of the state”
Social media platforms have a moral duty to ban misinformation about vaccines by Julie Leask and Jonathan Kennedy: Two leading thinkers on vaccine hesitancy and misinformation debate this crucial question[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Culture “][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Fighting the propaganda tsars by Sergey Khazov-Cassia: The Russian writer speaks to Index about why his books are sold wrapped in plastic and shares an extract from The Gospel According To
Banning those who ban by Bothayna al-Essa: Jemimah Steinfeld talks to the Kuwaiti author about a landmark case in the country that saw a ban on books overturned. Plus an exclusive extract from al-Essa’s book Guardian of Superficialities
“Your limitless grief is a tale with no ending” by Joshua L Freeman: We publish the poetry of three Uighur poets – Abuqadir Jüme Tunyuquq, Idris Nurillah and Shahip Abdusalam Nurbeg – who have disappeared in China
Page turners or slow burners? by Leah Cross, Jessica Ní Mhainín & Marc Nash: New books reviewed on the murder of a Honduran activist, stories from a Tibetan town and a semi-autobiographical account of an artist in the USA[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Index around the world”][vc_column_text]World loses titans of free speech by Benjamin Lynch: A look at the free speech advocates that recently passed away including Sir Harold Evans[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Endnote”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Fighting for Covid information by Lauren Brown: Meet the people who are ensuring that even those in the most censored environments receive accurate information on the pandemic[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 Dec 20 | Magazine, Volume 49.04 Winter 2020
Journalist
Zahra Hankir is a Lebanese journalist. She is editor Our Women on the Ground and was formerly at Bloomberg. She lives between Beirut, London and New York
Campaigner
Bianca Jagger is president and chief executive of the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation. She is a prominent voice in the human rights field. She is from Nicaragua
Philosopher
John Gray is an English political philosopher. He is the author of Mill on Liberty: A Defence and Two Faces of Liberalism
10 Dec 20 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115786″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Today we once again marked Human Rights Day. A day that gives us an opportunity to reflect on how far we’ve come as a society of nations and yet how far we still have to go before the aspiration of protected human rights is universally applied.
On the 10th December 1948, 72 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In theory, the UDHR gives everyone of us, wherever we live, an expectation of minimum rights. It outlines a framework of what we as citizens can and should expect from our political leaders. And it sets the rules for nation states about what is and is not acceptable.
As Eleanor Roosevelt stated when she addressed the UN Assembly on that fateful day:
“We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind, that is the approval by the General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recommended by the Third Committee. This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries.”
Index lives and breathes the UDHR. Our fight against censorship is based on Article 19 of the Declaration. We exist to promote and defend the basic human rights that were espoused that day.
Unfortunately, we remain busy.
There are still too many daily examples of egregious breaches of our basic human rights throughout the world. Index was established to provide hope to those people who lived in repressive regimes, so that they knew their stories were being told, not to be a grievance sheet but rather a vehicle of hope. But too many repressive governments are ignoring their obligations and persecuting their citizens. And too many democratic governments seemingly believe that the spirit of the UDHR (never mind their own legal frameworks) don’t necessarily apply to them.
This year alone we have learnt of the appalling Uighur camps in Xinjiang province, China; we’ve seen the Rohingya denied the right to vote in Myanmar; we’ve watched in horror as Alexander Lukashenko attempted to fix his re-election and then tried to crush the opposition in Belarus. We’ve seen journalists arrested in the USA for covering the Black Lives Matter protests; human rights activists imprisoned in Egypt and dancers arrested in Iran for daring to dance with men.
When you see the scale of the battles ahead in the fight to defend our human rights it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But there are things that each one of us can do to make a difference. As we approach the end of 2020 we’re asking you to send a message of hope to six people who are currently imprisoned for exerting their rights to free speech. Included in our #JailedNotForgotten campaign are the following brave individuals:
- Aasif Sultan, who was arrested in Kashmir after writing about the death of Buhran Wani and has been under illegal detention without charge for more than 800 days;
- Golrokh Emrahimi Iraee, jailed for writing about the practice of stoning in Iran;
- Hatice Duman, the former editor of the banned socialist newspaper Atılım, who has been in jail in Turkey since 2002;
- Khaled Drareni, jailed in Algeria for ‘incitement to unarmed gathering’ simply for covering the weekly Hirak protests that are calling for political reform in the country;
- Loujain al-Hathloul, a women’s rights activist known for her attempts to raise awareness of the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia;
- Yuri Dmitriev, a historian being silenced by Putin in Russia for creating a memorial to the victims of Stalinist terror and facing fabricated sexual assault charges.
We may not be able to send a message to every person currently being persecuted for exercising their right to free expression, but we can send a message of hope to Aasif, Golrokh, Hatice, Khaled, Loujain and Yuri. We will use our voices as much as possible to try and ensure they are not still in prison for the 2021 World Human Rights Day.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Dec 20 | Media Freedom, News and features, Slapps, Sweden
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115804″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has joined with other press freedom organisations to strongly condemn the legal action that has been filed at the London High Court against the Swedish business and finance publication, Realtid, in connection with their investigation on the financing of energy projects involving a Swedish businessman.
We, along with Reporters Without Borders, Article 19, Media Defence and European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), are concerned about the use of litigation tactics to intimidate journalists into silence. The organisations consider the case, which was filed in November, to be a strategic lawsuit against public Participation (Slapp), which is aimed at intimidating publications, and the journalists who write for them, into silence.
Realtid is being sued by Svante Kumlin, a Swedish businessman, domiciled in Monaco. Realtid had been investigating Kumlin’s group of companies, Eco Energy World (EEW), ahead of an impending stock market launch in Norway, a matter of clear public interest. The investigation began in September when Realtid’s reporters wrote about another stock market launch and discovered off-market sales of shares in EEW. Prior to publishing, the journalists contacted the company for an interview and for reply but did not receive a response.
In October, after publishing the report, the journalists once more tried to contact the people behind the company, including Kumlin to exercise their right of reply. After Kumlin declined to be interviewed, the journalists sent 14 questions that Kumlin could answer in writing, but Kumlin answered that his legal counsel “will respond to you directly”.
This was followed by several emails and attached letters from both a law firm in the United Kingdom, TLT Solicitors, and from Monaco, Gardetto. The firms threatened legal action in both countries if Realtid continued to investigate and to publish its investigations into the company and its owners.
On 20 November, Kumlin and TLT Solicitors filed a defamation lawsuit at the High Court in London against Realtid, its editor-in-chief and the two reporters behind the story.
In their letters the lawyers accuse the editor-in-chief, Camilla Jonsson, and the reporters, Per Agerman and Annelie Östlund, of defamation for publishing false information, and breaching a non-disclosure agreement by sharing, what the lawyers claim to be, confidential information. They also claim that Realtid violated Swedish press ethics and laws. If the latter claim is accurate, there are existing procedures to handle the case through the Swedish Media Ombudsman.
It is our assessment that it is inappropriate to threaten the magazine and the journalists with legal action in two jurisdictions, including by citing large fines and prison sentences.
“The fact that investigative journalists in Sweden, publishing in Swedish, for a Swedish readership could be inundated with threatening legal letters from other jurisdictions is outrageous,” said Jessica Ní Mhainín, senior policy and advocacy officer at Index on Censorship. “Realtid’s courage in the face of these threats has been incredible, but whether or not a newsworthy investigation is published shouldn’t come down to individual courage. We need to put an end to Slapps with legislation.”
“The email conversations between the lawyers and Realtid are unpleasant reading”, says Erik Halkjaer, president of Reporters Without Borders Sweden (RSF Sweden). “It is obvious that these types of legal threats, or Slapps can be used as a threatening tool, as sharp as any weapon, to silence journalists. I strongly condemn the actions of Kumlin, who should know better. The people at Realtid should know that they have our and several other Swedish organisations strong support in this.”
Despite the continuous threats, Realtid has continued its solid journalistic investigations. Between 29 September and 13 November, the newspaper published ten articles on this investigation. Kumlin repeatedly declined to answer questions, despite the reporters having digital recordings and public documents proving the content of their articles.
“We know that over half of the cross-border Slapp suits facing journalists from Europe emanate from London. As anti-Slapp measures are being introduced in Brussels, there is an urgent need for the UK to reform its plaintiff-friendly system in line with its stated commitments to uphold and promote media freedom globally,” said Sarah Clarke, head of Europe for Article 19.
After taking an interest in the coverage of Realtid, the Norwegian financial paper Dagens Naeringsliv started its own investigation on the same story. Shortly after doing so, they too were contacted by TLT Solicitors, who used their legal action against Realtid to issue similar threats.
“Investigative journalism is essential to holding people in positions of power and responsibility to account. Journalists who do this work should not be subject to aggressive legal claims in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions designed to intimidate and oppress. Any dispute between the parties should be resolved before the appropriate forum, in Sweden,” said Padraig Hughes, legal director of Media Defence.
Norway and Sweden are ranked 1st and 4th out of 180 countries in RSF´s 2020 Press Freedom Index. The United Kingdom is ranked 35th out of 180.
For press inquiries contact:
Jessica Ní Mhainín, [email protected];
Erik Halkjaer, [email protected];
Sarah Clarke, [email protected] [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Dec 20 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Credit: Daniel Schludi/Unsplash
As soon as Matt Hancock tweeted the news last week that the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine had been approved in the UK, the negative responses flooded in. “Take it at your peril. Eminent Drs in this field say it’s dangerous. It could cause death to those who later come in contact with the virus, & infertility in women. Who knows what else it will do,” said one. “It’s like boasting you won the race to Chernobyl” read another.
It’s tempting to dismiss these responses. But doing so would be counterproductive at best. Right now we need more information. And more information will involve bringing those who have reservations and fears about getting the vaccine into the public conversation.
Index is not a medical charity and it is not our job to write about the merits or demerits of the various vaccines. What is our job is to safeguard our freedoms. When it comes to vaccines, the territory is very challenging – and incredibly important. We strictly stand against enforcing the vaccine through mooted measures such as vaccine passports or banning the unvaccinated from foreign travel or school. Actions like these which would restrict freedoms for the unvaccinated are deeply troubling and could be tantamount to coercion.
But that doesn’t mean inaction is acceptable either. When there are surveys like the Opinium poll released at the weekend saying as many as one in three might not take the vaccine, we recognise that one person’s right to refuse a vaccine might impact another person’s right to live without fear of catching a deadly virus. There are members of the public that won’t be able to vaccinate who are very vulnerable, such as those undergoing treatments for certain illnesses, pregnant women and newborns. Without herd immunity – most easily achieved through mass vaccination – they all run the risk of catching Covid-19 and we recognise that the government has a duty to protect them.
Communication is the most ethical form of advocacy. Moreover, it’s most likely the most effective. The government – and all of us as members of society – must listen to people’s fears. Rather than mocking those who tweet at Matt Hancock that the vaccine can cause “death to those who later come in contact with the virus” and “infertility in women” we would have far more success at convincing people to vaccinate if we address these points. Is there any evidence for the claims? Where does this information come from? What are the risks?
If there is even a morsel of truth to some negative assertions, they should be discussed. And in discussing we must change how we discuss. Emily Oster is an economics professor in the USA. When she was pregnant with her first child, she was frustrated by blanket guidance saying things like “do not drink”. She found it disempowering and unhelpful. She dug into the data and wrote a book called Expecting Better, now a bestseller. It changes the terms of the discussion by expanding it. Instead of saying do not drink, she qualifies the risks and empowers her readers with a more complete picture.
We need to take a leaf out of Oster’s book and talk more openly about risk. No vaccine is 100% safe. Nor is crossing the road. Or walking down stairs. Or eating seafood. Rather than dismissing people’s concerns about the risks, we need to acknowledge them – and most importantly contextualise them. How does the risk of taking one vaccine weigh against relatable risks that we take day-to-day, like driving a car or consuming alcohol?
Finally, we need to adopt a no-size-fits-all policy. We cannot expect to reach everyone through the same messaging. New York’s Jewish Hassidic community has seen a series of measles outbreaks over the last few years exacerbated by an anti-vaccination handbook which was finding popularity in the community. In response a number of Orthodox Jewish nurses formed a group to combat the issue. As part of their grassroots approach, which involved going into people’s homes, they worked with community rabbis to discount some of the false claims in the book, such as one saying the MMR vaccine violates kosher dietary law. Health officials praised the group’s approach as highly effective at persuading parents to vaccinate their children. Their voices were simply more trusted in the community than outside voices.
We need to learn from examples such as this. We know Covid-19 has affected different groups in different ways – and that different groups have very different fears about the vaccinations. We need to tailor the message, advise and approach to each audience and their needs.
The same applies to how we talk about those who don’t vaccine. There is a tendency to lump them all in the same bracket – “anti-vaxxers”. Let’s stop that now because the reality is far more complex than a singular monolithic group of vaccine sceptics. Those who are strongly against vaccines (the stereotypical anti-vaxxers frequently derided by mainstream media) represent only a small proportion of the non-vaccinating population. Some who don’t vaccinate are what can more accurately be described as fence-sitters or vaccine-hesitant people. Many others simply slip through the net. Often these people have had every intention to vaccinate but didn’t receive letters, reminders or easy-to-digest guidance about when and where to get vaccines. It’s clear that these different segments warrant very different approaches.
There will be no easy way to ensure strong vaccine uptake. But if Index can offer any advice having documented a smorgasbord of attacks on science over the years, it’s that we can’t just rely on “the facts” to win the day. We need to work hard to persuade people. We need to invite everyone, including those we strongly disagree with, to air their fears and objections. We must not assume that “silenced in the public sphere” means “vanished in the private sphere”. We must empower people with more information, not less. And we must ensure effective communication and outreach in communities with distinct characteristics. Now more than ever we need to offer platforms for everyone to speak and we need to really, really listen in return.
A debate will feature in the forthcoming issue of Index on Censorship magazine, out mid-December, which considers the question of vaccine misinformation online. Two leading professors of global health policy and vaccine resistance take opposing sides on whether social media companies have a moral duty to remove misinformation. Click here for more on the magazine. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
