10 Jul 20 | News and features, Student Reading Lists
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This week, 150 writers and academics signed an open letter expressing dismay at the current state of free and open debate. The list of signatories is like a Who’s Who of contributors to Index on Censorship magazine over the years. We have looked into our archives to dig out some of the articles we have published by some of the signatories.
Margaret Atwood defends fiction as a worthwhile use of free expression, Salman Rushdie decries total censorship in Pakistan, Noam Chomsky examines how atrocities are reported by those committing them, Nadine Strossman writing in 1995 paints a shockingly current picture of the USA today, and Eva Hoffman discusses her relationship with language as a Polish emigrant to Canada.
Don’t tell us what to write – Margaret Atwood
Writing for a special edition of Index on Censorship in 2010, which marked 50 years of the Pen Writers in Prison Committee, Margaret Atwood upheld the importance of being free to write unfettered by expectations or demands. Atwood explored the impulse of journalists to reveal the truth, writing: “You can take the guts out of the investigative journalists, both figuratively and literally, but so far no one has been able to completely suppress the human urge that’s at least as old as the Book of Job: the need to tell.” She also examined attitudes towards fiction. Being a self-described fiction writer and poet, Atwood talked about how fiction writers often write with intentions to make a certain impact, perhaps to better their readers or the world at large, but placing this as a caveat for fiction to be considered worthwhile,”is to fall into the very same kind of thinking that leads to censorship.” Click here to read the full article.
Last chance? Salman Rushdie
Writers and Apartheid, the June 1983 issue of Index on Censorship magazine.
Is there dark humour to be found in an oppressive regime’s censorship? Salman Rushdie opened his piece, first published in Index in 1983 and republished in 2012 in the 40 year anniversary special issue, by examining this question through his first encounters with the censorship of films as a child. Censorship, he wrote, became less of an abstract source of the absurd when he began to experience it as a personal reality. On returning to Karachi, Pakistan after studying at Cambridge, Rushdie’s attempts at expression and creativity were curtailed by censors, at one point being told “ ‘the word pork may not be spoken on Pakistan television.’” He wrote of the total censorship enacted by the Pakistani government who, unlike the Indian government, had a firm and terrifying grip over journalists. What are the effects of such censorship? Rushdie questioned. “Where there is no debate, it is hard to go on remembering, every day, that there is a suppressed side to every argument. It becomes almost impossible to conceive of what the suppressed things might be.” Click here to read the full article.
Confronting the Monster – Noam Chomsky
Squeeze on democracy, the spring 2002 issue of Index on Censorship magazine.
Writing in early 2002, arguably of the most pivotal points in recent US history, Noam Chomsky examined the coverage, or lack thereof, of the reaction and aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and uses this example to dissect the notions of “them” and “us” in reporting on atrocities. The bombing campaign carried out by the US army on Afghanistan in October 2001, Chomsky wrote, left millions of Afghan civilians starving. Appeals to the US for an end to the bombing from UN bodies were rejected, and this was “virtually unreported”, as was a warning of humanitarian catastrophe from the Food and Agricultural organisation. Chomsky explained that the erasure of one’s own crimes against humanity is not a uniquely American phenomenon writing: “Only those entirely ignorant of modern history will find any of this surprising.” In the early 1990s, Chomsky wrote, the British government removed from the Public Record Office all files concerning the use of poisonous gas against “uncivilised tribes”. He summed up “the powerful determine what counts as history, what passes through the filters is the terrorism of the weak against the strong and their clients.” Click here to read the full article.
Diverting Tactics – Nadine Strossman
Rewriting history, the May 1995 issue of Index on Censorship magazine
Despite having been written in 1995 Nadine Strossman’s article examining attacks on The Bill of Rights, freedom of expression, and the groups in US society these attacks have the harshest impact on, feels startlingly current. Strossman wrote that the government proposals to criminalise desacration of the US flag would amount to “punishing the political protest that should be the most protected form of expression in a democratic society”. The violent dispersal of the ongoing protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd is a chilling reminder of the assault on freedom of expression in the USA today. Strossman highlighted how the rights of non-white groups are being specifically targeted through the disparagement of affirmative action programmes, which displays “the diminished national commitment to racial justice”. This is another topic, it perhaps goes without saying, that is an issue in present-day America. Strossman dissected the actions of politicians as quick fixes for societal problems. Click here to read the full article.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Words between worlds – Eva Hoffman and Raja Shehadeh
Eva Hoffman, author of Lost in Translation, spoke to then-editor Judith Vidal-Hall about her experience of emigrating from Poland to Canada as a child and developing a new relationship with language. As her native Polish became surplus to requirement, and English loomed as an unknown quantity, “I discovered to what extent language and culture constructs us really. To what extent it informs not only our larger assumptions and ideologies about the world”. Hoffman told Vidal-Hall how, having absorbed English as a second language, she found it to be beneficial as a writer; it gave her a vantage point of two cultures, two worlds. When asked why she started to write, Hoffman explained that through her words she might connect with people who had shared similar experiences: “I had some hope that perhaps I was trying to talk about things that had some meaning for other immigrants as well, that perhaps there was a kind of broader meaning to it”. Click here to read the full article.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also want to read” category_id=”7273″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
10 Jul 20 | Index Shots, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship’s editor in chief Rachael Jolley speaks with Professor Nadine Strossen of New York Law School and a former head of the American Civil Liberties Union. Strossen is one of 150 writers and academics who have signed a letter to Harpers magazine saying that the free exchange of information and ideas is becoming more constricted.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/GkMpZqeXN8s”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might like to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
10 Jul 20 | News and features, Opinion
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”114273″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Free speech is a powerful thing. It gives us all the right to use our voice, to engage in debates about the future and the past. It is one of our basic human rights and gave authority to so many campaigns which have shaped the countries we live in. It empowered the civil rights movement, it enabled the feminists, it galvanised the LGBT+ rights campaign and it facilitated the anti-racism and anti-fascism campaigns which gave so many of us a place in society. As with all our human rights it is to be used, celebrated and protected and cherished. It is a force for good.
There are times though when ‘debate’ on social media could make you believe that everybody hates each other. That we have nothing in common and that no-one else’s voice or opinion is valid. That anger and hate rather than conversation and debate are the current manifestation of our free speech. We know that not to be true in our offline world – but like it or not this does have an impact on our free speech; it doesn’t engender positive engagement but it does create a chilling effect. And the quality of our national conversation is all the poorer for it.
Index takes no position on any issue other than the protection of free speech. We don’t advocate for one side over another in a debate. But rather we celebrate debate and engagement and education, things that I think we should all cherish.
On Tuesday night, 150 leading writers and academics from across the political spectrum signed a joint open letter for Harper’s magazine decrying the current state of debate and engagement. Many of them have a track record in the fight to protect free speech, in fact several have previously written for Index. All of these people have a profile and voice. They aren’t being silenced. But they are rightly worried about the quality and calibre of our collective national conversations. And they raise valid concerns that other people are being silenced.
Their words are a warning and a message that should inspire debate, as it has in recent days:
“The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other.”
Our role at Index is clear – we exist to provide a voice for the voiceless – a platform for the persecuted. That’s what we were established to do 49 years ago. But, we also will campaign relentlessly to ensure that our basic human right of free speech and free expression is not only enshrined in law, but protected and respected.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”YOU MIGHT LIKE TO READ” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
09 Jul 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship has joined sixty press freedom groups and civil society organisations, journalism institutions, filmmakers, and other supporters to form a coalition in support of internationally celebrated Filipino-American journalist Maria Ressa.
Index has joined with the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Center for Journalists , and Reporters Without Borders and many others (see below) in the launch of the #HoldTheLine campaign in support of Ressa and independent media under attack in the Philippines. Acting in coordination with Ressa and her legal team, representatives from the three groups form the steering committee, working alongside dozens of partners on the global campaign and reporting initiatives. The campaign takes its name from Ressa’s commitment to ‘hold the line’ in response to sustained state harassment and prolific online violence.
Ressa is best known for two decades covering South East Asia for CNN and founding the multi-award winning Philippines news website Rappler. On 15 June 2020, she was convicted of “cyber-libel,” alongside former Rappler colleague Reynaldo Santos Jr – a criminal charge for which they face up to six years in prison. The conviction relates to a story about corruption from 2012 – before the law was even enacted – and hung on the correction of a typo.
Ressa and Santos both posted bail, but could be imprisoned if the case is not overturned on appeal. Ressa is facing at least six other cases and charges. Guilty verdicts in all of them could result in her spending nearly a century in jail. Rappler is also implicated in most of these cases, with several involving criminal charges related to libel, foreign ownership, and taxes. The convictions are the latest offence in the Duterte government’s wider campaign to stifle independent reporting, including the recent shutdown of the main national broadcaster ABS-CBN.
“I am moved by the incredible outpouring of support we’ve received from around the globe for our campaign to #HoldTheLine against tyranny – even as President Duterte continues his public attacks on me, the legal harassment escalates, and the state-licenced and Facebook-fuelled online violence rages on. We can’t stay silent because silence is consent,” Ressa said. “We need to be outraged, to fight back with journalism. If we don’t use our rights, we will lose them. Please stand with us!”
Those interested in showing support can sign and share this petition calling for the Philippine government to drop all charges and cases against Ressa, Santos and Rappler, and end pressure on independent media in the Philippines.
The 60 founding members of the #HoldTheLine Coalition are:
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which form the steering committee; African Media Initiative; Association for International Broadcasting (AIB); Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom; Amnesty International; ARTICLE 19; Association of Caribbean Media Workers; Canadian Journalism Forum on Violence and Trauma; Centre for Freedom of the Media (CFOM); Centre for Law and Democracy; CineDiaz; The Coalition For Women In Journalism; Community Media Forum Europe (CMFE); DART Asia Pacific; The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation; Dart Center; Doc Society; English PEN; European Journalism Centre; First Look Media; Free Press Unlimited; Global Alliance on Media and Gender (GAMAG); Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD); Global Voices; Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University; Index on Censorship; Institute for Regional Media and Information (IRMI); International Media Support (IMS); International Association of Women in Radio and Television (IAWRT); International News Safety Institute (INSI); International Press Institute (IPI); International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF); James W. Foley Legacy Foundation; Judith Neilson Institute; Justice for Journalists Foundation; Media Association for Peace (MAP); Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF); Namibia Media Trust (NMT); National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP); Pakistan Press Foundation; Panos Institute Southern Africa; PEN America; Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ); Press Freedom Defence Fund; Project Syndicate; Public Media Alliance; Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting; Rappler; Rory Peck Trust; Rural Media Network Pakistan; South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF); Storyhunter; The Signals Network; Tanzania Media Practitioners Association; Union of Journalists in Finland; World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA); and World Editors Forum.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”More news” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
09 Jul 20 | News and features, Statements
12 July marks 1,000 days since the assassination of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. On this anniversary, we, the undersigned organisations, once again demand that all those involved in her murder and the corruption she exposed are brought to justice.
In recent weeks, yet more disturbing revelations of state corruption and impunity related to the case continue to emerge, underscoring the weaknesses in Malta’s rule of law, and entrenched impunity for both the murder of Caruana Galizia and the high-level abuses of power she investigated.
During a June 2020 hearing to compile evidence against murder suspect, Yorgen Fenech, the Magistrate ordered the police to investigate former Police Commissioner, Lawrence Cutajar for tipping off middleman, Melvin Theuma. Providing evidence in court, Theuma said Cutajar had informed him that he was under investigation both for the murder of Caruana Galizia and money laundering.
Former Deputy Commissioner and lead investigator, Silvio Valletta is also under investigation for his dealings with Yorgen Fenech, after he fell under suspicion.
At the public inquiry on 1 July, it emerged that the police had failed to take any action against Keith Schembri, in his previous capacity as Chief of Staff for former Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, and former Energy Minister, Konrad Mizzi after Carauna Galizia revealed they owned offshore Panama companies in 2016. Responding to the testimony of Assistant Commissioner, Ian Abdilla, who has recently been replaced as head of the Economic Crimes Unit, the board of inquiry expressed disbelief that the police had done “absolutely nothing” with regards to the Panama Papers.
On 7 July, sources confirmed that Attorney General, Peter Grech, as the chief prosecutor, sent a note to police in 2016 advising them against investigating the Panama Papers, stressing that such an investigation would be “highly intrusive.” Such direct and unambiguous instructions from the Attorney General to restrict the police investigation into the content of Caruana Galizia’s work violated the responsibility of his post and was a clear obstruction to the course of justice rendering his position as Attorney General untenable.
Investigations in Italy, France, Latvia and Montenegro have also revealed links to corruption related to Caruana Galizia’s investigations in Malta.
Had the corruption which Caruana Galizia exposed – including the Panama Papers – been fully investigated and prosecuted at the time, it could have reduced the risk and isolation that she faced as a journalist, including an orchestrated campaign of harassment and vilification by high-level political and business figures in Malta.
The appointment of a new head of Economic Crimes Unit, Alexandra Mamo, and the nomination of a new Police Commissioner, Angelo Gafà, present an opportunity for the Maltese authorities to commit to tackling long-standing failures to investigate and prosecute allegations of high-level corruption and to reform institutions. In addition, the 18 June Venice Commission opinion on the Maltese government’s rule of law reform proposals is a welcome sign that the Maltese Government recognises the need for fundamental reform.
Prime Minister, Robert Abela has stated that he expects police to investigate “all corners” of the assassination. Today, we reiterate our call that the Maltese authorities honour the legacy of Daphne Caruana Galizia and ensure that all of those implicated in her murder – from the hitmen to the masterminds – are brought to justice and the corruption she revealed is finally prosecuted. The authorities should now establish Joint Investigation Teams with foreign police forces tackling related issues, so that there can finally be an end to impunity in Malta, and full justice for Daphne.
ARTICLE 19
Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Free Press Unlimited
Index on Censorship
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Scottish PEN
Transparency International
09 Jul 20 | Campaigns - new test
from Turkey to Poland, Brazil to Kashmir, the most stark has been the appalling attack on human rights in Hong Kong. The Chinese government has dealt a fatal blow to the “one country, two systems” pledge. In the hours that followed the government enacting its new National Security Law for Hong Kong, hundreds of people deleted their social media accounts for fear of arrest. Pro-democracy campaigners have shut up shop in the fear of life imprisonment and journalists on the ground are under huge pressure to curtail their reports.
In spite of the very real threat of arrest, however, thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand their human rights to free association, to free speech and to a life lived without fear of tyranny. Their actions, their bravery and their determination should inspire us all and I’d urge you to read the words of our correspondent from Hong Kong, Tammy Lai-Ming Ho. Events in Hong Kong need to generate more than just a hashtag – we need action from our governments. And we all must stand with Hong Kong.
As events developed in Hong Kong other national leaders were also moving against their populations. On Monday, the Ethiopian musician and activist Haacaaluu Hundeessaa was murdered. Hundeessaa’s music provided the living soundtrack to the protest movement that led to the former prime minister’s resignation. In the hours that followed Hundeessaa’s murder 80 people were killed and the government deployed the military in order to restrict protest and limit access to Hundeessaa’s funeral. They have also switched off access to the internet (again) to stop people telling their stories.
It is easy for us to miss the people behind these events. And in a world where oppression is becoming all too common, sustaining our anger to support one cause when the next outrage is reported can be difficult. But we cannot and will not abandon those who have shown such bravery in the face of brute force and institutional power.
Index was created to be “a voice for the persecuted” and with you we will keep being exactly that. Providing a platform for the voiceless and shining a light on repressive regimes wherever they may be
08 Jul 20 | Campaigns - new test
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In laoreet lorem in erat sollicitudin, ac convallis ante auctor. Sed ac ipsum malesuada, iaculis metus vel, vestibulum dolor. Aliquam eget vulputate libero, vel accumsan enim. Pellentesque id sapien sodales, finibus ligula sed, tempor metus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Morbi laoreet tristique quam, sed pretium orci vulputate et. Vestibulum eros ipsum, blandit vitae porta vitae, bibendum elementum massa. In a consequat leo, vel ultrices dolor. In vel enim accumsan, sollicitudin mauris tincidunt, vulputate nisl. In molestie non ex ut rhoncus. Morbi lobortis lorem dolor, sit amet pulvinar magna ultrices sed. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Proin tempus ex a velit placerat sagittis. Morbi ut viverra est. Phasellus rhoncus mattis facilisis.
Nullam mollis dui ut tellus malesuada elementum. Phasellus nisi quam, finibus a purus sed, tincidunt malesuada enim. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed at viverra metus. Vestibulum non consectetur nulla, et dignissim turpis. Phasellus finibus erat nec mattis porta. Duis nisi dolor, sodales vel nisi rhoncus, hendrerit laoreet mi. Vivamus sagittis turpis ut dolor rutrum pharetra. Nullam dictum nibh dolor, non pellentesque sem pulvinar ac. Aliquam erat volutpat. Ut nulla nibh, ullamcorper in finibus at, sodales eget dui. Quisque vel lacus eu dolor scelerisque ullamcorper
08 Jul 20 | Campaigns - new test
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In laoreet lorem in erat sollicitudin, ac convallis ante auctor. Sed ac ipsum malesuada, iaculis metus vel, vestibulum dolor. Aliquam eget vulputate libero, vel accumsan enim. Pellentesque id sapien sodales, finibus ligula sed, tempor metus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Morbi laoreet tristique quam, sed pretium orci vulputate et. Vestibulum eros ipsum, blandit vitae porta vitae, bibendum elementum massa. In a consequat leo, vel ultrices dolor. In vel enim accumsan, sollicitudin mauris tincidunt, vulputate nisl. In molestie non ex ut rhoncus. Morbi lobortis lorem dolor, sit amet pulvinar magna ultrices sed. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Proin tempus ex a velit placerat sagittis. Morbi ut viverra est. Phasellus rhoncus mattis facilisis.
Nullam mollis dui ut tellus malesuada elementum. Phasellus nisi quam, finibus a purus sed, tincidunt malesuada enim. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed at viverra metus. Vestibulum non consectetur nulla, et dignissim turpis. Phasellus finibus erat nec mattis porta. Duis nisi dolor, sodales vel nisi rhoncus, hendrerit laoreet mi. Vivamus sagittis turpis ut dolor rutrum pharetra. Nullam dictum nibh dolor, non pellentesque sem pulvinar ac. Aliquam erat volutpat. Ut nulla nibh, ullamcorper in finibus at, sodales eget dui. Quisque vel lacus eu dolor scelerisque ullamcorper
08 Jul 20 | Campaigns - new test
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In laoreet lorem in erat sollicitudin, ac convallis ante auctor. Sed ac ipsum malesuada, iaculis metus vel, vestibulum dolor. Aliquam eget vulputate libero, vel accumsan enim. Pellentesque id sapien sodales, finibus ligula sed, tempor metus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Morbi laoreet tristique quam, sed pretium orci vulputate et. Vestibulum eros ipsum, blandit vitae porta vitae, bibendum elementum massa. In a consequat leo, vel ultrices dolor. In vel enim accumsan, sollicitudin mauris tincidunt, vulputate nisl. In molestie non ex ut rhoncus. Morbi lobortis lorem dolor, sit amet pulvinar magna ultrices sed. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Proin tempus ex a velit placerat sagittis. Morbi ut viverra est. Phasellus rhoncus mattis facilisis.
Nullam mollis dui ut tellus malesuada elementum. Phasellus nisi quam, finibus a purus sed, tincidunt malesuada enim. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed at viverra metus. Vestibulum non consectetur nulla, et dignissim turpis. Phasellus finibus erat nec mattis porta. Duis nisi dolor, sodales vel nisi rhoncus, hendrerit laoreet mi. Vivamus sagittis turpis ut dolor rutrum pharetra. Nullam dictum nibh dolor, non pellentesque sem pulvinar ac. Aliquam erat volutpat. Ut nulla nibh, ullamcorper in finibus at, sodales eget dui. Quisque vel lacus eu dolor scelerisque ullamcorper
07 Jul 20 | Index in the Press
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Newly appointed CEO of Index on Censorship Ruth Smeeth writes in The Times about the origins of Index on Censorship, and the ongoing work of defending freedom of expression.
“Forty-nine years ago a call to action was made in the pages of The Times. The great and the good of our literary world were horrified at reports about what was happening to their colleagues behind the Iron Curtain and they wanted to help.”
Read the full article here[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
03 Jul 20 | China, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, News and features, Opinion
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”114148″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Following the news this week has been harrowing. Beyond the ongoing awful deaths from Covid-19 and the daily redundancy notices we also now have some governments turning against their citizens. Free speech around the world, or rather the restrictions on it, have dominated nearly every news cycle and behind each report there have been inspiring personal stories of immense bravery in standing up against repression.
While there have been government orchestrated or sanctioned attacks on free speech across the globe, from Turkey to Poland, Brazil to Kashmir, the most stark has been the appalling attack on human rights in Hong Kong. The Chinese government has dealt a fatal blow to the “one country, two systems” pledge. In the hours that followed the government enacting its new National Security Law for Hong Kong, hundreds of people deleted their social media accounts for fear of arrest. Pro-democracy campaigners have shut up shop in the fear of life imprisonment and journalists on the ground are under huge pressure to curtail their reports.
In spite of the very real threat of arrest, however, thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand their human rights to free association, to free speech and to a life lived without fear of tyranny. Their actions, their bravery and their determination should inspire us all and I’d urge you to read the words of our correspondent from Hong Kong, Tammy Lai-Ming Ho. Events in Hong Kong need to generate more than just a hashtag – we need action from our governments. And we all must stand with Hong Kong.
As events developed in Hong Kong other national leaders were also moving against their populations. On Monday, the Ethiopian musician and activist Haacaaluu Hundeessaa was murdered. Hundeessaa’s music provided the living soundtrack to the protest movement that led to the former prime minister’s resignation. In the hours that followed Hundeessaa’s murder 80 people were killed and the government deployed the military in order to restrict protest and limit access to Hundeessaa’s funeral. They have also switched off access to the internet (again) to stop people telling their stories.
It is easy for us to miss the people behind these events. And in a world where oppression is becoming all too common, sustaining our anger to support one cause when the next outrage is reported can be difficult. But we cannot and will not abandon those who have shown such bravery in the face of brute force and institutional power.
Index was created to be “a voice for the persecuted” and with you we will keep being exactly that. Providing a platform for the voiceless and shining a light on repressive regimes wherever they may be.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Essential reading” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
01 Jul 20 | China, News and features, Student Reading Lists
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Illustration from cartoonist tOad published today in response to the new law. twitter.com/t0adscroak, www.unsitesurinternet.fr
The National Security Law passed on 30 June in Hong Kong has dealt a massive blow to the city’s status as an autonomous region into which the Chinese government’s suppression of freedom of expression doesn’t encroach. The new law will criminalise “any act of secession, subversion of the central government, terrorism or collusion with foreign or external forces”.
Language like this, as those on the mainland may have experienced, could be manipulated to apply to any behaviour the Chinese government doesn’t like, leaving journalists, activists, protesters and campaigners at risk. Activists in Hong Kong have already begun to shut down their operations out of fear of reprisal in the wake of the law.
Since 1997, when Hong Kong was handed back to China having previously been a British colony, Hongkongers have enjoyed freedom of expression, including a flourishing free press, under the “one country, two systems” constitutional principle. As this principle begins to crumble, we look back at pieces published in Index magazine in 1997 which explored the implications of the handover and the future relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong.
In this edited version of the speech given by Professor Helen Fung-Har Siu in Hong Kong in 1996, she explored the national identity of Hong Kongers and how it intersected with the oppressive nature of the Chinese authorities. In the years preceding the 1997 handover, the people of Hong Kong enjoyed freedom of expression; Siu noted that one in six people there marched in protest at the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. Dissecting the socioeconomic developments in Hong Kong through the 1970s and 80s, Siu questioned how the region and its people, who are accustomed to independence from China, would adapt to its new relationship with the People’s Republic.
Published in early 1997 in anticipation of the handover, Geremie R Barmé, author of Shades of Mao: The Posthumous Cult of the Great Leader, wrote on the flow of popular culture from Hong Kong and Taiwan to mainland China through the 1980s. He explored how the lure of Beijing’s culture waned through the 70s, leading people to soak up the film and music coming from the south, despite attempts by the authorities to censor it. Hong Kong, independent from the Chinese authorities, acted as a conduit between the people in mainland China and Taiwan, and indeed the rest of the world. Barmé predicted that, as Hong Kong returned to China, the subsection of society supporting communist ideals would be brought to the fore by the mainland.
He wrote: “The patriotic significance of Hong Kong’s return to the mainland is lost on no-one. It is part of the final process of what the Communist authorities, and many people in China, see as the reunification of a divided nation.”
Ma Jian, an artist who left Beijing for Hong Kong in 1990, shared his feelings of liberation as he crossed the border and reflects on the suppression of his art on the mainland. Demanding rights and freedom from the Chinese authorities was, he wrote “like being on a battlefield”. Jian wrote that he would remain in Hong Kong after the handover, but projected a lack of optimism about his future freedoms.
“As we watch, incredulously, pre-ordained history advances, or rather, steps backwards to meet us,” he wrote. “No-one asks whether we accept the past, whether we can go and live the time we have already lived. It is as though, studying at middle school, we are suddenly sent back to kindergarten.”
In July 1998, Edward Lucie-Smith visited Hong Kong to find out how the city was acclimatising to the handover one year on. Finding local people unwilling to discuss at length the direction freedom of speech had taken, Lucie-Smith looked to global economic developments and how they could impact Hong Kong’s political future, and in turn the future of freedom of expression. Hong Kong faced an economic downturn in 1998, along with other so-called ‘tiger-economies’, meaning the Hong Kong Chinese elite, who were middlemen between the democratic forces in Hong Kong and the Chinese authorities, may have chosen to move to other parts of the world, leaving Hong Kong and its people more at risk of being ideologically swallowed up by the mainland.
He wrote: “The general feeling was that the British were handing over an economic jewel – a financial mechanism so successful and so finely tuned that the mainland Chinese government would be foolish to interfere with its functioning. But would it be able to resist tinkering, on ideological grounds, with the ‘special economic zone’ within China that Hong Kong was now to become?”
Published in January 1997, Jonathan Mirsky, then East Asia editor of The Times, wrote on how freedom of expression began to crumble in Hong Kong in anticipation of the handover. He described how news channels reported on China in a “vapid or grovelling” manner, to avoid attempts at censorship by Chinese representatives in Hong Kong.
Outspoken democratic politicians told Mirsky how their colleagues no longer wanted to be associated with them. Organisations were expected to plan celebrations for the handover, and comply. Mirsky predicted a dismal future for Hong Kong where loyalty to the Party would be an overriding expectation.
Charles Goddard, at the time of writing a member of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, discussed Hong Kong’s position as eyes on China for the rest of the world, where issues such as human rights abuses in mainland China could be discussed and dissidents from the Chinese authorities could find a relatively safe haven. Goddard, however, highlighted the dangers to journalists in Hong Kong reporting negatively about China, predicting that the status of the city as a place where freedom of expression could flourish would only diminish.
Liu Dawen, at the time of writing the editor of Front Line magazine, took an optimistic view of Hong Kong’s future, believing that the spirit of democracy would not wane.
“In the longer term, the Party cannot stem the ‘raging tide’ of democracy indefinitely either in Hong Kong or in the People’s Republic. When things reach a certain pitch, the pendulum must swing back in the opposite direction,” he wrote.
Charting the arrests and imprisonments of Chinese journalists, Asia-Pacific researcher for Reporters San Frontieres Barbara Vital-Durand painted a picture of China as a country which cracked down harshly on outspoken dissidents from the party line. She foreshadowed a world in which, post-handover, Chinese authorities would extend the jaws of censorship to crush Hong Kong journalists, and access to the internet on the mainland would be tightly controlled.
“Journalists’ organisations and free speech groups have been unsuccessful in getting the British authorities – or subsequently China’s Preparatory Working Committee (PWC) – to abolish several legislative measures which, if left in place, will provide the Chinese authorities with some powerful weapons to use against the media,” she wrote.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”3″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1593615252756-723f64f2-cdee-10″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
