04 Dec 20 | Academic Freedom, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115791″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]I love words. I love how language evolves and how a book, or an article or a speech can change your perception of the world in a moment. I am so proud to be part of the team at Index because our role is to make sure that everyone, wherever they live, has a right to use the most core of human rights – our right to free expression. That you and I both have the same rights to have our voices heard.
But just because we have the same rights to free speech doesn’t mean that I have to agree with you, or respect you, or even like you. In fact, my right of free expression empowers me to fundamentally disagree with you and tell you so. It gives me the right to challenge you, to challenge societal norms, to think differently and to make my argument to the world. It allows me to write this blog.
Of course, there are limitations, certain clubs you may choose to join have their own standards and by joining them you are choosing to abide by their rules. Some institutions have set frameworks on language for good reason, but in the main, in our homes, at the pub (whenever we get to go to those again – not that I am bitter about living in Tier 3!), on our social media, free speech empowers people and ensures that the minority have the protected right to be heard.
What we don’t have is a protected right to be liked or respected. Respect is earned. Respect demands that I value your opinion. Respect requires me to think there may be merit in your views. I am a proud anti-racist. I simply can’t and would not respect the views of a racist. I am a proud trade unionist. I could never respect a union-breaker. I am a proud internationalist. I would never respect the arguments of populism or nationalism.
But while I may not respect the people that espouse these views or the ideas themselves that doesn’t mean that I don’t have to tolerate them. It doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to say them and to promote them. It just means I have the right (and on occasion the responsibility) to challenge them and prove them wrong. I may find someone’s arguments abhorrent (and I do, regularly) and I am never going to respect them but I do have to accept their right to have those views and in a free and fair society I have to tolerate the objectionable.
Which brings me to Cambridge University. On Tuesday (8 December) we will know the result of a ballot of academics at one of our most important academic institutions. The ballot is on the issue of free speech and as you would expect from an institution built on the principles of academic freedoms and intellectual curiosity there is a debate about the definition of free speech. Specifically, whether academics have to respect each other’s opinions or merely tolerate them.
Honestly, I think it would be perverse for an institution which is meant to be free to explore and investigate every aspect of our societies, an institution that demands its academics debate and argue to prove their point, an institution which has a global leadership role – to demand respect for abhorrent views, rather than toleration.
We all want to live in a world where people are nicer to each other, where you can go on social media without fear of abuse, where hate crime is a thing of the past. I don’t think that we’re going to achieve these goals if we demand respect from each other. We need to earn it and the first step on that journey is toleration.[/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]
01 Dec 20 | India, Iran, Media Freedom, News and features, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_hoverbox image=”115781″ primary_title=”Aasif Sultan” hover_title=”Aasif Sultan” hover_background_color=”black” el_class=”text_white”]Aasif covers human rights for the Kashmir Narrator and was jailed for two years in August for alleged involvement in “harbouring known terrorists”[/vc_hoverbox][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_hoverbox image=”115782″ primary_title=”Golrokh Emrahimi Iraee” hover_title=”Golrokh Emrahimi Iraee” hover_background_color=”black” el_class=”text_white”]Jailed for six years in 2016 for writing about the practice of stoning in Iran and “insulting Islamic sanctities”[/vc_hoverbox][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_hoverbox image=”115743″ primary_title=”Hatice Duman” hover_title=”Hatice Duman” hover_background_color=”black” el_class=”text_white”]Hatice Duman is the former editor of the banned socialist newspaper Atılım, who has been in jail in Turkey since 2002[/vc_hoverbox][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_hoverbox image=”115783″ primary_title=”Khaled Drareni” hover_title=”Khaled Drareni” hover_background_color=”black” el_class=”text_white”]Khaled was jailed for three years in Algeria in August for covering the Hirak protest movement[/vc_hoverbox][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_hoverbox image=”115780″ primary_title=”Loujain al-Hathloul” hover_title=”Loujain al-Hathloul” hover_background_color=”black” el_class=”text_white”]Loujain is a women’s rights activist known for her attempts to raise awareness of the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, where she remains in jail[/vc_hoverbox][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_hoverbox image=”115741″ primary_title=”Yuri Dmitriev” hover_title=”Yuri Dmitriev” hover_background_color=”black” el_class=”text_white”]Yuri has been targeted for his work in identifying the graves of victims of Stalinist terror and has been jailed on baseless charges of sexual assault by the authorities[/vc_hoverbox][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]2020 has been a terrible year for the world.
Unfortunately, for some human rights activists, free speech supporters and journalists, 2020 is just yet another year they have spent in prison, incarcerated on trumped-up charges for speaking out against the actions of authoritarian regimes.
As 2020 comes to a close, we want them to know that no matter how long they have been in jail, they have not been forgotten.
We have chosen six people whose plights must not be forgotten as part of our new #JailedNotForgotten campaign.
Early in 2021, we will send cards containing messages of support from the Index team but we are also asking for you to stand in solidarity with them. Please use the form below to personalise your message to the chosen six:
- 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.
Add your message of support using the form below.
You can also sign up to receive our weekly newsletter, which features news relating to freedom of expression issues around the world. You do not need to sign up to this to send a message. [/vc_column_text][gravityform id=”50″ title=”false” description=”true” ajax=”false”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115746″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/donate”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
01 Dec 20 | Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115685″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Today Index on Censorship is publishing “Slapped down: Six journalists on the legal efforts to silence them”, a report that includes the testimonies of journalists from across Europe, who have faced legal threats and actions as a result of their work.
“What the report shows is the ease with which the law can be used to intimidate those who are reporting in the public interest,” said senior policy research and advocacy officer Jessica Ní Mhainín, who has been leading Index’s Slapps work. “It demonstrates the impact that is has on journalists, both personally and professionally, and the chilling effect it can have on the press freedom more broadly.”
The publication of Index’s report coincides with the publication of “Protecting Public Watchdogs Across the EU: A Proposal for an EU Anti-SLAPP Law”. The proposed law is endorsed by 60 organisations, including Index on Censorship. If implemented, it would ensure that Slapps are dismissed at an early stage, that litigants would have to pay for abusing the law, and that Slapp targets would be provided with support to defend themselves.
“As it stands, whether or not an investigation about a powerful or wealthy entity comes to light relies in large part on a journalist’s courage and the good-will of the media outlet publishing their work. Are they willing to risk being sued?,” said Ní Mhainín. “Why are we allowing the fulfilment of such an important public service to be a potential risk? Why are we not providing more support to those whose work is so critical to our democracies?”
“We need an EU anti-Slapp directive to protect these watchdogs, whose work helps to hold the powerful to account and to keep our democratic debate alive.”
[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
30 Nov 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Judith Vidal-Hall at the 2017 Freedom of Expression Awards. Credit: Dimitri Lauder/Index on Censorship
“The invasion of privacy is the reverse side of censorship. If you don’t feel that your privacy is immune, you’re not going to speak out, you’re going to hold your tongue. Or not talk about certain things. So it has this strange underbelly of censorship,” said Judith Vidal-Hall, former editor of Index on Censorship from 1993 to 2007. I meet Vidal-Hall on a sunny afternoon at a river-side cafe in West London to discuss her experiences of editing the magazine. We’re chatting about the internet and the privacy concerns that come with it, a concern that went from almost non-existent to ubiquitous during her time as editor.
“One of the greatest threats to free expression at the moment is privacy,” she added.
Vidal-Hall worked at Index at one of the most pivotal eras in recent world history. In 1993 the Twin Towers still stood, the world wide web was in its infancy and South African apartheid continued to be enforced. By 2007 the political and social landscape had become almost unrecognisable.
Under Vidal-Hall’s stewardship, Index navigated this global metamorphosis, identifying those in power who obscured the truth, those who were being shut out of the narrative, and gave the “voiceless a voice”.
How did Vidal-Hall find herself editing the magazine in 1993?
“It’s quite a long story, it’s a bit of a saga,” she told me over sausage rolls and tea. And a bit of a saga it really is. Returning to the UK in 1976 after a couple years of travelling, Vidal-Hall approached the Guardian, on behalf of a Bangladeshi friend, to start the Guardian Third World Review. It was, she said, “an absolutely pioneering supplement where third world people told their own stories”.
She remembers a Guardian journalist at the time asking her: “Don’t you think we treat the third world fairly?”. “That’s not the point.” she had replied. “You’re keeping their voices out…I didn’t use the word at the time I don’t think, but they’re censored. You keep them out.
Without skipping a beat, she added: “We then started a magazine called South.” South: The Voice of the Third World, was a monthly magazine which was about including other voices. South closed its doors in 1989 and, Vidal-Hall chuckled, “my husband buggered off at the same time so I was left with no husband, no income”.
Shortly after, she received a call from Philip Spender, who was running Index, asking for a reference for Andrew Graham-Yooll, who had been an editor at South. Graham-Yooll became the editor of Index, and it was he who brought Vidal-Hall into the fold.
It was not the best time for Index. Many of Index’s funders had seen it as “a Cold War weapon” and, believing communism to be over with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, they had withdrawn their funding. By the early 1990s Index was “basically bankrupt”.
Inside the axis of evil, the spring 2003 issue of Index on Censorship magazine
Enter the Fritt Ord Foundation, a group of Norwegian newspaper owners “ashamed of the takeover of their media by the Nazis in the [19]40s, and they had made a resolution, never again to work for anyone but themselves and to support independent media.”
And so in 1993, supported by funds from the Fritt Ord Foundation, Index was relaunched with Vidal-Hall as the editor, who had some big plans.
“One was to make it an attractive, readable magazine.”
Next: “I wanted it to be much more diverse…it did have a sort of Cold War focus and I wanted to bring in a much more global focus.”
“The third thing I wanted was to get rid of the idea that censorship was what they did out there, not what we did. They censor, we don’t. So I wanted to make it universal, the concept of censorship.”
I discuss with Vidall-Hall an Index article from 2002 by Noam Chomsky, Confronting the Monster. In this article Chomsky, writing in the wake of 9/11, examines how the West considers only actions taken by the enemy to be war crimes, while believing their own actions are always justified.
“He was so much my hero,” Vidal-Hall said on hearing Chomsky’s name.
“The them and us, it’s a good way to put it [referencing Chomsky’s article]. They do it, we don’t. And I wanted to break that, so that was my main [aim], to make Index inclusive not only of all genders, colours etc and creeds, don’t forget creeds, but also to make it inclusive of us, as guilty as them in a different way.”
Underexposed, the November 1999 edition of Index on Censorship magazine, which was Vidal-Hall’s favourite to work on
As we discuss Chomksy’s article, I ask what was the most important global event that happened while Vidal-Hall was at Index.
She says gathering around the television in the office to watch events on 9/11 unfolding live: “And that in some ways was the beginning of what I would call a series of events. It changed the balance, the perspective, relationships and priorities in the world. So, off the cuff, I would say that the sequence of events between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq…that was the changing moment.”
The conversation turns to media coverage of that time. How were the narratives controlled by the states in question? What did it mean for freedom of expression?
“[In 2001-2003] people thought they had freedom of expression but they didn’t know the facts. And why didn’t we know the facts? We were lied to, there were no weapons of mass destruction.”
She added: “For me, and it’s very personal, what that invasion did was destroy a level of what seemed like stability in international relations. And I think the revelations of the inquiry into the lies that have been told was quite shocking… Are governments transparent? No! When they need to lie they will lie if it defends them.”
While the events of 2001 to 2003 were the most important during Vidal-Hall’s time as editor, her favourite issue predates them. It is a 1999 issue called Underexposed, which explored the censorship of photographs.
“It was fascinating. I didn’t go to the office for days. I spent weeks searching [for images]…some of the ones I remember most clearly, visually, are the ones from the early 30s when Hitler was coming to power. The photos that were never published. I’ll give you one example. Never published in Germany! Photos of him. There’s this one photo where he’s being coached in sort of rhetoric and he didn’t want people to know that he was being coached.”
Vidal-Hall also reflects on interviews she conducted in the early 1990s, one with a key player in modern European far-right politics.
“When the [Berlin] Wall came down I went out to Hungary and various other places…I did some rather interesting interviews…One of them was with a man you might have heard of, Viktor Orban. I interviewed him back when the Wall had come down, communism had fallen and him and another young man whom I’m still in touch with, Peter Molnar, I interviewed them together. They were the founder of Fidesz, the party that has now gone extreme right. And Orban seems to have undergone a personality change.”
Meditating on far right politics in Europe today, Vidal-Hall said: “How much of it is our mistake in thinking that democracy can just be delivered to the door by Amazon in a parcel with a smile?”
This gloomy take is offset by Vidal-Hall’s praise for Index: “As a publication you are unique, there is nobody else who is doing what index is doing. And that is extraordinary, to remain so. I feel strongly about that.”
The interview wraps up and I leave, my mind awash with the battles Index has won alongside all of those that we are still fighting today. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Nov 20 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115674″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This week marked the launch of a sixteen-day UN campaign to eliminate gender-based violence. As part of the global solidarity movement they want to turn the world orange. In the 21st century this campaign should not be necessary, but we see daily examples across the world of how women are being singled out for violence, whether state-sanctioned or by non-state actors or even in people’s homes.
When someone talks about violence towards women it is easy to assume they are talking about domestic violence, after all across the world 243 million women and girls were abused by an intimate partner last year.
Closer to home there were over 200,000 incidents of domestic abuse logged by the police in 2019/20 in England and Wales alone. My friend Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, every year on International Women’s Day, reads the names of those women who have been murdered in the UK by their partner – this year she read out 108 names.
Jess uses her voice for the women who no longer have one.
But violence against women isn’t only an issue of domestic violence. We’ve seen too many examples where violence against women, whether threats or actual violence, is used as a tool to try and silence them, to ensure that their voices aren’t heard.
Last month a survey published by Plan International found that 59% of women interviewed had been subjected to some form of abuse online. These statistics alone are enough to bring about a chilling effect for women who want to participate in public discourse but it’s compounded when you consider some of the highest profile academics, campaigners and journalists who have been murdered, imprisoned or threatened in recent years:
- Kylie Moore-Gilbert, accused of espionage by the Iranian regime and finally released this week after two years in prison;
- Loujain al-Hathloul, a women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who has been imprisoned for the last two years.
- Maria Ressa, the investigative journalist from Rappler, hit with fines and criminal charges for her work;
- Daphne Caruana Galizia, a campaigning Maltese journalist assassinated on 16 October 2017;
- Berta Cáceres, a leading Honduran environmental activist murdered in her home on 2 March 2016.
These women represent untold others, whose stories we simply don’t know – yet. That in itself is heart-breaking.
Our job at Index is to keep shining a spotlight on what is happening across the world, to make sure that as many people’s stories as possible are told. To empower them, to fight with them and to support their families. To make sure that no one is silenced because of the fear of violence.
We were launched nearly 50 years ago – but there is still so much work to do.
For more information on Orange the World see https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/end-violence-against-women[/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]
26 Nov 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115664″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has launched an interactive tool aimed at helping journalists to understand whether the legal threats or actions they are facing could be considered a Slapp action. The assessment is based on the journalist’s answer to 13 questions about their case.
“Some journalists who are facing vexatious legal threats or actions might be wary about sharing details about the case beyond their immediate circle, including with media freedom organisations, for fear it might aggravate their legal situation,” said senior policy research and advocacy officer Jessica Ní Mhainín, who has been leading Index’s Slapps work.
“This tool helps journalists to quickly and easily understand whether the threats or action they are facing might be considered a Slapp while remaining completely anonymous.”
“We hope that this tool will empower journalists to make an informed decision about what action they want to take if they are advised that they are likely to be facing a Slapp,” Ní Mhainín said. “If they are facing a potential Slapp, we would advise them to seek support. Ultimately, the best way to defeat a Slapp is to make it backfire – to refuse to be silenced.”
The launch of the tool is part of the wider #StopSlapps campaign.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_btn title=”Launch the Slapps tool” color=”danger” size=”lg” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2Fam-i-facing-a-slapps-lawsuit%2F”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Nov 20 | News and features, What the Fuck!?
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115655″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In this episode, Index’s associate editor Mark Frary talks to musician, poet and activist Penny Rimbaud, who founded anarchistic punk band Crass in the 1970s.
He talks about why the battle isn’t against Donald Trump but against all US presidencies and why the British are the most repressed in the world. He says the Sex Pistols and the Clash were only playing at being angry.
He also. says everyone should change their name, as he did, and why his poetic namesake is the inspiration behind his new album, Arthur Rimbaud in Verdun, now out on One Little Independent Records.
The high-concept album is based on a fiction constructed by Penny which places the French poet Arthur Rimbaud (who died in 1891) at the historic and tragic battle of Verdun in 1916. It is influenced by the sounds of John Coltrane and the visuals of Jackson Pollock.
Index on Censorship’s What the Fuck!? podcast invites politicians, activists, journalists and celebrities to talk about the worst things going on in the world, why you should care and why you should swear.
Listen to the launch episode with British artist Alison Jackson, famous for her fake photos of politicians and the royal family as she talks about the phenomenon of Donald Trump. The second episode features Harry Potter actor Natalia Tena, who talks about how she became aware of female genital cutting, a practice that affects more than 200 million girls and women around the world.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
25 Nov 20 | Egypt, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Kelly and Ennarah in happier times
Two months ago, British documentary filmmaker Jess Kelly was making plans for a happy future. She had just got married and she and her Egyptian husband Karim Ennarah were planning on a life together in London.
Today, the future could hardly be more uncertain. Ennarah is in an Egyptian jail facing charges of belonging to a terrorist group and spreading false news, with the threat of a long jail sentence.
Ennarah’s ‘crime’ was to meet in early November with a group of European diplomats, including from the UK and the Netherlands, to discuss human rights issues in the country. Ennarah works as criminal justice unit director for the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. His work focuses on human rights abuses within Egypt’s policing and the criminal justice system.
Speaking to Index, Kelly said, “I was in London on the day of the meeting and we were on the phone. He mentioned he had to get up early and had an important meeting with a couple of diplomats.
“It was typical of him to underplay the importance of these things and also to underplay his role. He joked that he was going to have to wear a suit. I didn’t know then it was going to be such a historic turning point,” said Kelly.
A few days later, Ennarah travelled to the Red Sea town of Dahab for a short break with friends. Kelly planned to join him there.
On the day of his arrival, Ennarah received a phone call to say that his EIPR colleague Mohammad Bashseer had been arrested. He thought about turning around and heading straight back to help but he decided to stay for one night.
Kelly says, “That night he called me, he told me the police had come to his mum’s house and told me to prepare for the worst. He couldn’t couch it in comforting terms.”
A natural advocate
Kelly first met Ennarah in 2009.
“I was doing my degree in Arabic and was spending the second year in Cairo. We were introduced by mutual friends. At the time, he was working for the UN in South Sudan and he started working for EIPR in 2011, just after the revolution. We got together in 2015.”
Ennarah was well suited to his new role.
“He found himself very suited to the job of advocacy,” said Kelly. “His sense of right and wrong was strong and he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of human rights. He is also a very good speaker and can talk to anyone.”
EIPR is one of the few remaining human rights organisations in Egypt.
“Over the years, Karim has supported many journalists who come to him for comment,” said Kelly. “EIPR are the ones in the know, they are the only people taking testimonies and conducting proper research into abuses of human rights, whether of minorities or in the criminal justice system.”
Kelly says that the human rights situation in Egypt has deteriorated over the years and the authorities have been locking up political prisoners at an increasing rate.
“I have made films in most countries in the Middle East – Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. Egypt is the only place I have never been granted a visa. People see Egypt as a holiday destination where you can drink and people have a good time. It is well known to us in the media that Egypt is the only place that you don’t try and expose things because you will be locked up.”
Someone has to keep fighting
On 18 November, the couple’s concerns materialised. Ennarah was sitting in a restaurant in the Red Sea town when he was arrested by the authorities.
During a four-hour investigation, security forces confiscated his laptop, phone and personal belongings and ordered his pre-trial detention for 15 days on charges of “joining a terrorist group”, “using a social media account to spread false news” and “spreading false news”. The prosecutor said the charges were based on security investigations showing that Ennarah “agreed with a group inside prisons to spread false rumours that could undermine public peace and public safety.”
Ennarah is not alone – Patrick George Zaki, a human rights activist who had previously worked with EIPR, and the organisation’s executive director Gasser Abed El Razek have also been arrested.
“When Patrick Zaki was detained in February, it was a huge shock for everyone,” said Kelly. “We discovered that they had interrogated him and had asked about Karim by name.”
Despite this worrying development, Ennarah did not flinch.
“Karim is someone who is not going to run away from anything until he is forced to,” said Kelly. “We spoke about how it wasn’t safe for him but he just was never going to give up this role. There are not many people who can take it one, he would say, someone has to keep fighting.”
He loves Egypt the most
Kelly has not been able to speak with Ennarah or get him a message since his arrest a week ago but she believes emphatically that he will be strong.
“Karim is very resilient and very pragmatic,“ said Kelly. “He will be confident that he has the best people working on his case get him out. He is very strong-willed but I think it is going to be very hard for him to think about his mum and me. He wouldn’t have wanted me to put my life on hold but I can’t think of anything else.”
Kelly speaks to Ennarah’s mother regularly. “When we talk, she seems pretty strong. She is proud of him. She says to me, ‘He is the person who loves Egypt the most. How could they level these accusations against him?’”
Kelly believes that applying pressure now – before there is a trial or sentencing – offers the best chance of getting him free. Some 90,000 people have already signed a petition started by Kelly to UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab calling for the UK government to demand his release.
Next Monday is Ennarah’s 38th birthday and it will be a difficult day for Kelly and Ennarah’s family.
“Just two months ago when we got married we were dreaming of our future together. Now I don’t even know when I’ll get to see him again,” she said. “I couldn’t wait to have him by my side. Now our life together has been crushed.”
She says the charges against Ennarah are totally unfounded.
“His only crime is to dare to believe that Egyptians deserve the most basic of human rights.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”4060″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
25 Nov 20 | News and features, Tanzania
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Campaigners at the 2010 election in Tanzania, when voter turnout was higher than today. Credit: flowcomm/Flickr
The 2020 general election in Tanzania is becoming a huge blemish on Tanzanian democracy. Held at the end of last month, the CCM incumbent, John Magufuli, was declared the winner by 84% of the vote, with his biggest opponent Tundu Lissu from Chadema getting only 13% of the vote. The ruling CCM also won by unprecedented numbers seats in the union parliament (over 90%), the Zanzibar house of representatives, as well as ward councillor seats, sending the country to a near single party era.
The main opposition parties, Chadema and ACT Wazalendo, have jointly denounced these results, declaring the entire election process illegitimate, citing rigging of epic proportions including reported but unverified claims of ballot stuffing in multiple constituencies and foul play against opposition candidates. They have also called out human rights abuses during the process, alleging that 14 people have died because of excessive use of force by police in Zanzibar.
Opposition leaders and members in different localities have been unlawfully detained during and after the elections. A call for nationwide peaceful protests seemed to go unanswered by the masses and was met with stern warnings from the police. Some opposition leaders like Lissu were forced to flee the country for their safety.
Instead of finding a path to dialogue and reconciliation that allows the concerns of millions of Tanzanians to be addressed, the government of Tanzania has mostly been dismissive of these allegations.
“Tanzanians want democracy, respect for their basic human rights and dignity,” said Lissu while speaking with Index via Zoom.
Until recently Tanzanians put a lot of trust in the ballot. But amid claims that the National Electoral Commission and Zanzibar Electoral Commission lack independence and therefore credibility to oversee a free and fair election, voter turnout has dropped. The chairs and members of NEC and ZEC are appointed and can be fired by sitting presidents of Tanzania and Zanzibar respectively, who may also be candidates in an election.
“Partiality is built into the Tanzanian system, making rigging a systemic problem,” said Lissu.
“Our minimum demand is for an independent electoral commission and substantial reforms in the electoral system,” he added.
But a systematic overhaul will take time.
Zitto Kabwe, a prominent leader from ACT Wazalendo, told Index, “We need a credible and independent investigation into the 2020 election.” He sees an independent investigation as a more immediate first step to restoring trust that has been eroded in the current regime.
Magufuli may have rightly won this election because of his popularity and ambitious economic agenda, but the process that declared him the winner was marred with allegations of irregularities. Agreeing to such an investigation could help clear these allegations and restore trust.
Opposition leaders like Lissu and Kabwe represent the voice of millions of Tanzanians, yet their speech is often vilified as ill will and unpatriotic. In fact, Tanzanians often treat Lissu much like the world treats women who face abuse: When he was shot many times people blamed him and demanded he produce evidence of his own assault; when he was in the news speaking about his attack, people said he wanted attention, that he was slandering the good name of the country, that he shouldn’t air the country’s dirty laundry. And so we find ourselves in a situation where there has been no proper investigation and no arrests for whoever attacked him.
Intensifying censorship in Tanzania has further tarnished the election. In addition to repressive laws that have mellowed the media, as well as stifled civil society and political parties in the past four years, private phone companies were co-opted into shutting down the internet for millions of people during and after the election.
In this toxic environment, the media has suffered further attacks, especially those who work at foreign media, which is tarnished by the brush of colonialism. Journalists and citizens don’t just suffer from the threats posed by this suppressive regime, they have to navigate how any speak highly critical of the government, and therefore country, might be seen as unpatriotic. The result is self-censorship. Writing negative news about your country is a terrifying act.
“We are in an economic warfare, and Tanzanians aren’t strangers to imperialism,” said Wilbrod Slaa, a disillusioned former Chadema secretary general and 2005 and 2010 presidential candidate. There is a mistrust of international involvement.
“What would speaking out do for the country?” several people who didn’t wish to be named asked Index.
But of course democracy demands free speech to be truly free.
“Tanzania has a history of solving its own problems. I wish the government would hear us and come to the table for dialogue and consensus and avoid extreme measures like sanctions,” said Ado Shaibu, Secretary-General of ACT Wazalendo. “We can’t afford to become another Zimbabwe,” Shaibu added.
Tanzania must end its war on dissent. Tanzanians deserve that much.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Nov 20 | Artistic Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Maggi Hambling’s Statue for Mary Wollstonecraft, photo: Grim23, CC BY-SA 4.0
What would Mary Wollstonecraft have thought? The 18th century feminist, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, has been commemorated with a new sculpture that includes the figure of a small, naked woman. The woman is not, according to artist Maggi Hambling, Wollstonecraft herself, but a timeless everywoman. Indeed, the work is A Sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft rather than of her.
The reaction has been swift and almost unilaterally negative. Feminist authors who stand on Wollstonecraft’s shoulders have taken to Twitter to express their views to defend the oft- labelled “mother of feminism”. Imogen Hermes Gower said a chance to break with convention has been missed and Tracy King called the piece a “shocking waste of an opportunity”. Caitlin Moran sarcastically tweeted that she expects the streets to be full of statues depicting “John Locke’s shiny testicles, Nelson Mandela’s proud penis, and Descartes’ adorable arse”.
Meanwhile, Dianne Abbot MP tweeted: “Pleased to see the great feminist #MaryWollstonecraft honoured after 200 years. And it is in a lovely garden square in Stoke Newington. But what a disappointing statue. Tiny, shiny and completely inappropriate”.
Valid opinions, all. Debate around art is arguably what abstract artistic endeavour is all about. It is a form of expression as valid as the works themselves.
Where a line must be drawn is censorship.
Just a day after the sculpture appeared in North London, clothing, tape and facemasks had been used to cover up the female figure, who sits atop a large, amorphous silver mass like a star at the top of a Christmas tree. These efforts at censorship have since been removed, but they pose an interesting question: why does female nakedness, especially in conjunction with honouring feminist ideals, inspire a desire to censor?
My own thoughts on the reason the statue is controverial came quickly: female nakedness is linked with sexual objectification, and the idea that women do not exist in the world purely as sexual objects for male pleasure is a key tenet of feminism. The two are not happy bedfellows and their collision in this sculpture is at the root of the displeasure of its critics.
But this thought process seemed a little too easy. The truth is that the link between sexual objectification and nakedness, in art as in life, is not a truth universally acknowledged. It is not unbreakable; it is not unchallengeable. It is a construct of the patriarchy, and to censor the naked female form in art is to play into the hands of those who want to preserve the idea of women exclusively as sexual beings.
Caroline Banks, an artist who has written a blog about the sculpture, says that women should own their own nakedness: “There is an argument for reappropriation of that [sexual objectification]. Why should we be ashamed of our bodies because every time we have no clothes on we think we’re going to be looked at as a sexual creature, or not [if you’re not fertile]?”
She also explored how loaded the term “nudity” is. Several news outlets have referred to the sculpture as “nude”.
“That woman is naked,” Banks says, “she’s not nude”.
She explains: “That’s where the male gaze comes in a lot of the time. The idea of the nude in art is different from being naked. If you’re naked you just haven’t got any clothes on. Babies are not nude. People on the mortuary slab are not nude. They’re naked, they’re not nude.”
This idea of being naked as opposed to being nude, and the censorship of nakedness when it is loaded with the implications attached to nudity, is something that has also been explored in relation to the public exposure of female nipples.
Head of content at Index, Jemimah Steinfeld, wrote about this form of censorship in 2017. This was the year a case was taken the US Supreme Court by a woman named Sonoko Tagami, who was suing the city of Chicago over a fine she received for exposing her nipples in public, arguing that it is sex-based discrimination; men are not fined for the same action.
Censorship of female nipples on social media is also the source of debate and feelings of discrimination; Instagram continues to enforce a ban on female nipples, a topic covered in depth by The New York Times. The implication seems clear that female anatomy is sexual and therefore needs to be censored. The idea of parts of a woman’s body being exposed for reasons other than to sate the male gaze seems to have escaped the censors.
And back, then, to A Sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft.
It is a work of art, the majority of which is a roiling silver mass from which the naked figure emerges. The figure’s nakedness appears at odds with feminist values.
But the sculpture’s would-be censors have it wrong. Covering its nakedness merely upholds and strengthens its sexual objectification.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”15469″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
20 Nov 20 | Egypt, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115594″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]One of the most challenging things about working for Index is being exposed, on a daily basis, to the realities and the horrors of repressive regimes. Every day there is another murder of a journalist, a book banned, a student arrested, a people, like the Uighurs, imprisoned. The bad news seems never-ending.
We are a small team, but we work with correspondents and activists across the world and every time we learn of a new arrest or attack there is that moment of fear – do we know them? When were we last in touch? What can we do? And if we don’t know them, it’s likely we know someone who does.
For every infringement, for every arrest, for every murder there is also an element of guilt – what more should we have done? When was the last time we focused on that country, on that fight? On that repressive regime? When did we last use our voices for them?
This was absolutely the case last night, when reports started to emerge from Cairo about the arrest of Gasser Abed El Razek, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR). The details are sketchy but it seems that Razek was arrested at his house in Cairo’s Maadi neighbourhood and no one knows where he has been taken.
This is the third arrest of EIPR staff in recent days; their ‘crime’ – briefing European diplomats on the current state of human rights in Egypt.
Administrative director Mohammed Basheer was arrested on Sunday while criminal justice unit director Karim Ennarah was arrested while on holiday on Wednesday.
All have been charged with joining a terrorist group, spreading fake news and other financing terrorism. All are now under pre-trial detention, in theory for 15 days, but under Egyptian law it could be two years.
There are currently 60,000 political prisoners thought to be incarcerated in Egypt.
We know that because organisations like the EIPR make sure that we do. The EIPR is one of the few remaining independent NGOs reporting on human rights in Egypt. And Razek has been one of the leading voices exposing human rights violations both in Egypt and across the Middle East for over 20 years. These arrests are not just an attack on free speech, but on the global community fighting for our collective human rights.
We stand with Gasser Abed El Razek, Mohammed Basheer and Karim Ennarah and we will keep reporting on them until they are freed.[/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]
19 Nov 20 | News and features, Religion and Culture, Spain
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Nymphadora Tonks, played by Natalia Tena
In the latest episode of Index on Censorship’s What the Fuck!? podcast, associate editor Mark Frary talks to actor Natalia Tena, known for playing Nymphadora Tonks in the Harry Potter movies as well as Lana Pierce in the YouTube science fiction series Origin and Osha in Game of Thrones.
Tena talks about how she became aware of female genital cutting, a practice that affects more than 200 million girls and women around the world, after reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Infidel:My Life.
She talks about why she has been walking the Santiago de Camino to fundraise for The Orchid Project and her favourite swear words in English and Spanish.
Index on Censorship’s What the Fuck!? podcast invites politicians, activists, journalists and celebrities to talk about the worst things going on in the world, why you should care and why you should swear. Listen to the launch episode with British artist Alison Jackson, famous for her fake photos of politicians and the royal family as she talks about the phenomenon of Donald Trump.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
