[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Editor-in-chief of Index on Censorship magazine, Rachael Jolley, writes in the New Statesman on how the rights to press freedom are being violated around the world in the wake of the coronavirus crisis. Index is running a project to map these incidents.
“Challenges are coming at us from all directions. But the public’s right to know should not be erased during this time,” she wrote.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”113291″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]The Indian state’s response to the coronavirus outbreak has seen an acceleration of violence against Muslims, further silencing of political dissent and attacks on press freedom. These trends are being tracked on the Index on Censorship global map monitoring media freedom violations during the coronavirus pandemic, put together by our staff, our contributors and readers as well as our partners at the Justice for Journalists Foundation.
One pattern to emerge is Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s determination to control the coronavirus narrative. Before the lockdown was announced, Modi met with the press to urge them to only publish “inspiring, positive stories” about the government’s handling of coronavirus. Many outlets have buckled under the pressure, fearful of being branded unpatriotic. As reported on the Index map, part of this was a campaign by Modi’s government for advertisers and businesses to cut support for independent news outlets. This has presented an enormous danger to the free press in India. If only pro-government media are allowed to flourish during one of the biggest global crises in recent years, those with the power to protect, or neglect, people’s health and well-being will not be held to account for their actions.
Journalists whose reporting does not follow the party line on coronavirus face harassment and detention by the state. For example, independent news website the Wire reported that Yogi Adityanath, a fundamentalist Hindu cleric and chief minister of India’s largest state Uttar Pradesh, attended a religious ceremony after the lockdown had been announced. This did not chime well with the presiding narrative that the Muslim community are to blame for the spread of the virus. There have been reports that Siddharth Varadarajan, founder-editor of the Wire, is now facing criminal proceedings for, among other things, “creating or promoting enmity between classes”.
Thousands of people, including jurists and academics, have signed a public statement condemning the state’s actions, calling legal action against Varadarajan an attack on press freedom. While this support is undoubtedly appreciated by Varadarajan, Modi’s attitude towards the press since he came to power in 2014, and continuing in the wake of coronavirus, means things do not bode well for him.
But these are not the only attacks tracked on our map. Journalists have also faced physical violence in the street while trying to report on the outbreak. Naveen Kumar from news website Aaj Tak was beaten by police in Delhi on his way to his office on 23rd March. On the same day Ravi Reddy, bureau chief at The Hindu, was attacked by three policemen in Hyderabad. Mendu Srinivas, political bureau chief at Andhra Jyothy, was also beaten by police in Hyderabad. Since 2014, there have been over 200 serious attacks on journalists.
We have also had reports of journalists being accused of spreading “fake news”. As with many allegations of fake news that we have tracked on the map, more often than not the charge is being used to silence people. At the same time, misinformation is being allowed to spread like wildfire. In a sadly predictable turn of events, rumours have spread online that the Muslim community is responsible for the virus’ spread.
As a result, Muslims have been physically attacked in the street and Sikh temples have warned people against buying milk from Muslim dairy farmers, claiming it is infected with coronavirus. Mohammed Haider, who runs a milk stall, told The New York Times: “People only need a small reason to beat us or lynch us.” The Indian Express, a widely read daily national newspaper, reported that hospitals were segregating Muslim and Hindu coronavirus patients, quoting a doctor as saying it was a government decision.
The events of the past year have shone a light on the mistreatment of Muslims in India. The repealing of Article 370 and the subsequent internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir from August, and the Citizenship Law in December, both discriminated against Muslims. Now the coronavirus outbreak has provided another excuse to demonise and discriminate Muslims in the country.
And this might highlight the biggest trend of all, namely that the coronavirus outbreak has exacerbated issues already bubbling beneath the surface since Modi came to power in 2014. In this environment, a free press has never felt more important.
If you know of any examples of violations against the media in India or elsewhere, please do report them to our map. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Keeping our heads down can mean that hard-won rights can easily be lost. Sometimes we choose to stay quiet, but often we are complicit without realising, says Rachael Jolley” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_single_image image=”113251″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
“It is easy to part with or give away great privileges, but hard to be gained if once lost,” said Quaker William Penn, who went on to establish the state of Pennsylvania in the USA.
Far more recently, another wise man, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Judge, said: “There are still many countries in the world where what we happily call our rights remain privileges waiting to be won and entrenched.”
These thoughts are the cornerstones of the theme of this issue – the idea that we can give away our rights if we do not stand up for them.
We can be complicit in letting them erode if we feel they are not important enough or let other things take precedence, and many are willing to give away freedom for security.
The Merriam Webster dictionary tells us that the root of the English word “complicit” comes from the Latin word “complicare”, meaning “to fold together”, and that it has evolved over time into meaning helping to do wrong or to commit a crime in some way – in other words, allowing ourselves to be folded into a bad idea.
In allowing ourselves to be complicit, we potentially allow those in power to take away some of our rights forever.
As Lord Judge also points out in his book The Safest Shield, we should be careful never to assume that liberties, rights and justice can be taken for granted.
Complicity is our theme for today because, in 2020, there are multiple powers that like us to give things away – our privacy, our knowledge and even our power to say no. They try to get us to fold into their purpose, to agree it and let them move forward.
It comes at us in many forms.
Many of us are complicit in giving away lots of information about ourselves, such as our contacts and photo albums from our phones. We do this in exchange for free use of software apps – Facebook or Google Maps, for instance.
We do a deal with their owners that they will let us use their stuff, and not charge us, but all along, deep down, we probably guess there is some pay-off.
We know there’s no such thing as a free lunch, so why would there be free email or free software? The answer is: there isn’t. There is a price to pay – you exchange your knowledge and contacts for that which is “free”.
And, as Mark Frary investigates on page 31, taking some decisions – such as being logged in all the time – means you are giving away more than you might imagine.
Frary tracks how much information Google is storing about him and his movements, and realises that it knows 700 places which he has visited in the past six years. That’s a lot of knowledge about him, his movements and where he might be going.
It doesn’t take much imagination to think back to a time when that would be a treasure trove to a government wanting to know more about its citizens because it wanted to prevent them having information, passing it to others and knowing what was going on.
Let’s take the Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s, for instance, where journalists and many others were “disappeared” for asking the wrong questions.
What if that kind of information had been available to those governments? What extra power would it have given them to track down dissenters and to send in the police?
Shift forward in time to Venezuela today, from where Stefano Pozzebon reports for us on why the media and activists feel afraid. Threats and imprisonment are being used by the authoritarians in charge of this troubled nation to silence those who disagree with them.
And that government could try to access individuals’ whereabouts from Google Maps simply by putting in a request to Google. The company doesn’t always hand over information to governments which request it, but many times it does. Imagine for a moment what that might feel like.
Pozzebon said: “For those who don’t want to join the almost five million Venezuelans who have already left, not saying anything about anything becomes the only way to cope.”
When we are afraid we are most at risk from the pressure that others might place on us not to speak out or criticise. We can be complicit in attempts by the powerful to change society and remove those rights that Penn set out.
Of course, acting out of fear is understandable. It is easy for those far away who are not risking their lives, or those of their families, to say: “Oh you must do this, or stand up for that.” It is not so easy to do that once you know what, and whom, you put at risk.
This desire to quiet your anger and put it away until a less dangerous time is something that most humans can understand.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fas fa-quote-left” size=”xl”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”The petition said she demanded the imprisonment of scholars who had signed a ‘Peace Petition’. The thing was, she didn’t” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
That’s why Kaya Genç’s article from Turkey is so important. In it he describes the moment that changed one academic’s attitude dramatically. The name of Anıl Özgüç, a professor of medicine at Istanbul’s Aydın University, was added to a pro-government petition without her knowledge. The petition said she demanded the imprisonment of scholars who had signed a “Peace Petition”. The thing was, she didn’t.
And by that action, her attitude – which had been to keep quiet and hope for the best – changed.
She had reached her tipping point and she was no longer prepared to shut up: it was a step too far to take her name from her. Like John Procter in The Crucible, giving up her name was too much.
Suddenly she put aside her fears and spoke up. She is now an open critic of the government’s attempts to restrict academic freedom.
This chimes with new research from Jennifer Pan, at Stanford University, who looks at repression in authoritarian countries. Her research found that arrests of outspoken activists in Saudi Arabia had the effect of silencing the individuals but, surprisingly, did not deter others from speaking out. In fact, it motivated more people to criticise the government and the monarchy, and stepped up calls for change.
So while outsiders might expect the opposite to be true – that people would be cowed – Pan’s research shows that there is a tipping point and it can prompt more outspoken calls for change.
Complicity is not an easy topic. We should all be able to see there are sometimes reasons for not challenging the powerful, and times when it would be understandable to feel afraid or at risk.
Many around the world take that responsibility very seriously, and choose to make brave choices – even when it might put them in danger. It is these people whom Index often profiles, and we are in awe of those who can be incredibly brave when the odds are stacked against them.
Complicity is a challenge for us constantly, and in small and large ways we will be confronted by it all our lives. The question is: what is our response?
The piece is part of the 2020 spring issue of Index on Censorship magazine. Buy a copy or subscribe here.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Why and when we chose to censor ourselves and give away our privacy” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]The spring 2020 Index on Censorship magazine looks at how we are sometimes complicit in our own censorship[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”112723″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
Our Index on Censorship spring 2020 podcast features the Miami Herald journalist Mary Ellen Klas talking about being denied access to a press briefing in Florida on coronavirus and how reporting in the country under Trump has become even more difficult in the crisis, Moa Petersén, senior lecturer at Lund University, discusses the Swedish microchipping phenomenon, while the journalist Noelle Mateer speaks about living in China as everyone around her embraced surveillance cameras.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”113272″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/indexawards20live/”][vc_column_text]A Russian artist currently under house arrest for her work on gender and sexual equality and one of the first free investigative journalism and fact-checking websites in Poland are among the winners of the 2020 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards. The winners, who were announced today on Twitter as part of a digital gala hosted by BBC presenter Timandra Harkness, also include a prominent lawyer fighting for the release of activists and journalists unlawfully detained in Turkey, a Bahraini activist living in exile in the UK and an Arab non-profit promoting digital rights of Palestinians.
Awards were presented in four categories: arts, campaigning, digital activism and journalism. The winners are: Russian artist Yulia Tsvetkova (arts); Turkish lawyer Veysel Ok and Bahraini activist Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei (campaigning); Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, also known as 7amleh (digital activism); and OKO Press (journalism).
Selected from hundreds of nominations from across the globe – a list of some of the most inspiring and courageous individuals and organisations operating today – the winners of the awards represent those who have had a significant impact fighting censorship. Now celebrating their twentieth year, previous recipients of the awards include activist Malala Yousafzai, Chinese author Ma Jian and journalists Anna Politkovskaya, Rafael Marques de Morais and Mimi Mefo.
“Today we acknowledge the winners of the Index 2020 awards as amazing people who do amazing things, while overcoming incredible challenges in difficult times. They fight for freedom of expression when others can’t,” said Rachael Jolley and Matt Townsend from Index on Censorship.
“This is the 20th year of the Index on Censorship awards, and we would also like to mark the winners of the previous ceremonies here today. It’s a highly unusual ceremony this year. We were forced to move online at the last minute, but it has meant that people from across the globe can join us today in noting the work that our winners 7amleh, Veysel Ok, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Yulia Tsvetkova and OKO Press have done,” they added.
Each winner is now part of a year-long fellowship, which involves them working closely with Index who offer long-term, structured support. The goal is to help winners maximise their impact, broaden their support and ensure they can continue to excel at fighting censorship and free expression threats on the ground.
This year’s panel of judges included New York-based artist Molly Crabapple, award-winning Guardian journalist Amelia Gentleman and Cindy Gallop, founder of social sex video platform MakeLoveNotPorn. Speaking on the awards, Gallop said:
“I am in awe of all of the candidates we were asked to review for these awards and just blown away by what they are doing around the world. And I am thrilled that the Freedom of Expression Awards exist to celebrate that courage and those triumphs at a time when the need could not be greater.”
All of the winners spoke of how the awards had given them hope.
“It shows that our work has found support from the international community,” Ok said, while Nadim Nashif of 7amleh said the award would motivate them “to work more to advance digital rights and to achieve our vision of a safe, fair and free digital world”.
“The award pretty much reminds me that not everything is that bad. That there are still people who believe that [what I do] is important. For me, it changes pretty much everything. So thank you,” said Tsvetkova, who explained that over the last year she had received death threats and found it hard to focus on why what she was doing was important.
They also spoke about the greater challenges posed as a result of the coronavirus crisis. Alwadaei said:
“During the coronavirus crisis, I would like to pay tribute to those imprisoned in Bahrain for speaking out against the regime. This award is very special to me because my dear friend, Nabeel Rajab, was awarded this prize in 2012. Nabeel is currently serving 5 years in prison for criticising the government on Twitter.”
He added: “In these difficult times, it is more important than ever that freedom of speech is protected and that independent, critical voices are heard.”
But looking ahead OKO Press sounded a note of optimism:
“We believe the danger will wane, both epidemic and political. We will wake up in a healthier world.”[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113163″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Winning in the Arts category was Yulia Tsvetkova, a Russian artist and activist promoting women’s well-being and LGBTQ awareness. Her work has brought about positive change in discussions towards body positivity and gender stereotypes in Russia. But this acclaim has also made her a target. In 2018 she began a campaign promoting body positivity which resulted in her being named a suspect in a criminal pornography distribution case. Tsvetkova, currently under house arrest, could face up to six years in prison if convicted. In March 2019, her youth arts festival was cancelled after officials accused Tsvetkova of illegally trying to hold a gay pride event under the guise of a youth theatre festival.
The award for Campaigning went to two individuals. The first is Veysel Ok. Ok is a prominent Turkish lawyer providing pro-bono legal support to journalists, activists and academics who have been subjected to intimidation, surveillance, smear campaigns and harassment. His work has been instrumental in the release of several unlawfully detained journalists and writers. Ok is one of the first to challenge the Turkish laws of accreditation which determine whether a journalist meets official requirements to do their job. As part of his work, he received a five month suspended sentence for criticising the independence of the Turkish judiciary. He has been subject to surveillance and harassment ever since.
The second winner in the Campaigning category is Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, a Bahraini activist currently living in exile in the UK. He was forced to flee Bahrain in 2011 after being arrested for taking part in anti-government protests. The Bahraini government revoked his citizenship and launched a smear campaign labelling him a terrorist. As the director of advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, his work has become a vital resource for international media and NGOs. One such case was the discovery that institutions supported by UK taxpayers have been implicated in torture and other human rights abuses. Despite the danger faced by him and his family, Alwadaei continues his work as a prominent critic of the Bahraini government.
The Journalism award and Digital Activism award both went to organisations doing invaluable work in the digital sphere. One of the first free investigative journalism and fact-checking websites in Poland, OKO Press picked up the journalism award. OKO investigate and evaluate statements made by politicians, monitor public spending and fight for access to public information. In so doing they’ve paved the way for other news sources to follow suit. This has contributed to a safer and stronger public sphere, fighting for immunity from government propaganda.
Their work also supports grassroots activism; crucial in Poland, a country which is sliding further and further into authoritarianism and censorship. Indeed, the environment in which they work is becoming increasingly hostile. Political polarisation, lack of transparency, suspicion, threats and withholding of information are common. In the face of this, OKO Press shows resilience and determination. As they said in their acceptance speech:
“We are honoured to receive the award, but also humbled but the fact that other nominees, from Hong Kong, Venezuela and Burundi are acting in much harder circumstances. Friends, we admire your courage, determination and quality of work.
Kaczyński is no Maduro, Nkurunziza, Putin, or Erdogan, but apparently he takes his inspiration from them. We are not a dictatorship yet, though we are close to the so-called electoral authoritarianism, where all forms of public scrutiny, besides the elections, are being suppressed.”
Finally, the Digital Activism award went to the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, or 7amleh as they’re known, a non-profit organisation focused on protecting the human rights of Palestinians in the online space. As Israel increases online monitoring, Palestinians are taking to social media to express disdain. 7amleh’s work protecting online safety and digital rights has been crucial. Through capacity building, research, advocacy and campaigning, 7amleh works to ensure that policies and companies are complying with human rights and are working towards greater accountability. Their campaign work with NGOs has seen huge numbers of participants. They’ve worked towards amendments in the Palestinian Authority’s Cybercrimes Law, the development of the first Arabic Digital Security Manual and digital training being implemented into the Palestinian education system.
If you believe in the work Index do please think about donating. For more information on how to donate click here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/CHeaC4lQRjI”][vc_column_text]OKO Press is the one of the first free investigative journalism and fact-checking websites in Poland.
They investigate and evaluate statements made by politicians, monitor public spending, and fight for access to public information. Their work also supports grassroots activism; crucial in an environment sliding further and further into authoritarianism and censorship.
OKO Press have paved the way for other news sources to follow suit. This has contributed to a safer and stronger public sphere, fighting for immunity from government propaganda.
The environment in which they work is becoming increasingly hostile. Political polarisation, lack of transparency, suspicion, threats and withholding of information are common. In the face of this, OKO Press shows resilience and determination.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, we are OKO.press. “Oko” means “eye” in Polish.
Since 2016, we keep an eye on what is happening in the EU and the world, but most importantly in Poland. Our country is going through a tough trial under the government of the populist right that invokes the worst nationalist traditions.
As journalists, we check whether those in power are not misleading us. We shine a light on the things they are trying to hide.
We are a participatory medium. We give a voice to all kinds of community initiatives. Which — like us — believe in the values of constitutional democracy, truth and transparency, human rights, including gender equality, the rights of LGBT+ people, as well as animal rights, environmentalism, and protecting the planet from climate change.
We are honoured to receive the award, but also humbled but the fact that other nominees, from Hong Kong, Venezuela of Burundi are acting in much harder circumstances. Friends, we admire your courage, determination and quality of work.
Kaczyński is no Maduro, Nkurunziza, Putin, or Erdogan, but apparently he takes his inspiration from them. We are not a dictatorship yet, though we are close to the so-called electoral authoritarianism, where all forms of public scrutiny, besides the elections, are being suppressed.
The prize is a great distinction for us, but also proof that the world is interested in what is happening in Poland. And justly so, because the virus in one EU country will spread further [until] there are no countries left free of infection. It is short-sighted and arrogant to think that Poland or Hungary are irrelevant because they are merely Eastern Europe.
Index on Censorship is the organisation which prevents us from silencing our consciences. In many places of the world we face political violence, laws being broken, and a wave of authoritarian right-wing populism.
Truth is the weapon of the civilised society. The pandemic has show that truth is ever more important, as the lack of the feeling of safety can lead to mass retreat from freedom. But catastrophes and crises also give rise to what is best and change the world. The Covid-9 crisis can come out for the better as well.
We promise to continue the fight against the anti-democratic virus which is taking over the world. We have one humble measure: the word. But as Vaclav Havel said, this is and always has been Power of the Powerless.
We believe the danger will wane, both epidemic and political. We will wake up in a healthier world.
Please help us to keep going. Read and support OKO.press.
Thank you for the award! “[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkvLmjiTmrQ”][vc_column_text]The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, or 7amleh, is a non-profit organisation focused on protecting the human rights of Palestinians in the online space.
As Israel increases online monitoring, Palestinians are taking to social media to express disdain. 7amleh’s work protecting online safety and digital rights has been crucial.
Through their work in capacity building, research, advocacy and campaigning, 7amleh works to ensure that policies and companies are complying with human rights and are working towards greater accountability.
Their campaign work with NGOs has seen huge numbers of participants. They’ve worked towards amendments in the Palestinian Authority’s Cybercrimes Law, the development of the first Arabic Digital Security Manual and digital training being implemeted into the Palestinian education system.
“Hello, my name is Nadim Nashif, Founder and Director of 7amleh, The Arab Centre for the Advancement of Social Media. Thank you Index on Censorship, for awarding us this year’s Digital Activism Award.
Since our founding, 7amleh has been working to raise public awareness about Palestinian digital rights, locally and internationally. 7amleh works to advocate for the digital rights of Palestinians who are especially vulnerable due to the Israeli occupation and blockade, and digital discrimination from the tech companies. We also work on building digital security and advocacy capacities of activists and organisations.
Major achievements include developing the first Arabic digital security manual and [gender] sensitive digital security curriculum.
This award will motivate us to work more to advance digital rights and to achieve our vision of a safe, fair and free digital world.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK-ZFW2MFVU”][vc_column_text]Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei is a Bahraini activist currently living in exile in the UK. He was forced to flee Bahrain in 2011 after being arrested for taking part in anti-government protests. The Bahraini government revoked his citizenship and launched a smear campaign labelling him a terrorist.
His family have also been subjected to numerous human rights violations by the Bahraini authorities, including arbitrary detention, unfair trial, ill-treatment and possible torture.
Despite the danger faced by him and his family, Alwadaei continues his work as a prominent critic of the Bahraini government.
“I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Index on Censorship for awarding me this prestigious prize. I am sorry not to be able to accept it in person, but I commend Index for taking the decision to keep us all safe during this crisis.
The price for expressing yourself in Bahrain remains very high. I myself ended up in prison for speaking to the press during the Arab Spring and Bahrain has jailed members of my family to silence me.
During the coronavirus crisis, I would like to pay tribute to those imprisoned in Bahrain for speaking out against the regime. This award is very special to me because my dear friend, Nabeel Rajab, was awarded this prize in 2012. Nabeel is currently serving 5 years in prison for criticising the government on Twitter.
In these difficult times, it is more important than ever that freedom of speech is protected and that independent, critical voices are heard.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/-cB0SsziqKk”][vc_column_text]Veysel Ok is a prominent Kurdish lawyer specialising in free speech and press freedom.
He provides pro-bono legal support to journalists, activists and academics who have been subjected to intimidation, surveillance, smear campaigns and harassment. His work has been instrumental in the release of several unlawfully detained journalists and writers.
Ok is one of the first to challenge the Turkish laws of accreditation which determine whether a journalist meets official requirements to do their job.
Ok has received a five month suspended sentence for ‘insulting the Turkish judiciary’. Asserting his right to freedom of speech; Ok commented on the ‘loyalties’ of judges. This has landed him in a position of surveillance and harassment.
Nevertheless, he stands strong in his fight for justice and freedom of expression for journalists in Turkey.
“In reality, the fight for human rights is crucial for everyone. In Turkey [all lives] are at risk for defending human rights; not just the work I do.
For the past twelve years, I have been fighting for the right to free expression for journalists and writers. For the past three years, we have continued this fight through at the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), where I am co-director. We provide legal support to journalists and activists who are in prison with no access to legal services. We stand by them and fight for their freedoms, we fight for access to information [and?] in Turkey. This is the wider work I do, and why MLSA is so important.
This award is a win for the fight for free speech in Turkey. It shows that our work has found support from the international community, and that there is a greater international advance. This gives me incredible hope and pride. I would like to thank you one more time for this award.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLFoAMW0HoQ”][vc_column_text]Yulia Tsvetkova is a Russian artist and activist promoting women’s well-being and LGBTQ awareness.
Her work has brought about positive change in discussions towards body positivity and gender stereotypes, however this acclaim has made her a target.
In March 2019, her youth arts festival was cancelled after officials accused Tsvetkova of illegally trying to hold a gay pride event under the guise of a youth theatre festival.
In 2018 she began a campaign promoting body positivity which resulted in her being named a suspect in a criminal pornography distribution case. If convicted, Tsvetkova could face six years in prison.
She is currently living under house arrest; banned from communicating with anyone except her mother and her lawyer. Receiving death threats regularly, Yulia fears for her family’s safety.
“For the last year, I’ve been hearing that my work means nothing. That women do not need rights, that body positivity is a pornography that corrupts children and ruins their lives. That I should go to jail and face a sentence, that I should be murdered and I should be burned at the stake because I am a witch.
It is pretty hard to keep the focus of why whatever I was doing was important.
The award pretty much reminds me that not everything is that bad. That there are still people who believe that [what I do] is important. For me, it changes pretty much everything. So thank you.”
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”As China struggles with coronavirus, will there be any change in the attempts it makes to get international companies to censor their content before operating within its borders, Charlotte Middlehurst reports” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_single_image image=”113104″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The legacy of the coronavirus in the country where it all began is likely to continue long after the virus itself has been dealt with. The Chinese government may have seen some pushback from its citizens on how it initially managed information surrounding the outbreak, but at the end of the crisis it might find itself with even more control over how information is disseminated within its borders.
“Beijing is trying to balance a tightening of social control in the interest of public health, and a loosening of social control to promote economic growth. Loosening social control means encouraging companies and people to go back to work,” said William Callahan, a professor of international relations at LSE.
“However, China is unlikely to loosen its control over censorship – even for international companies like Apple – to promote economic activity.
“From what we’ve seen, Beijing is using the coronavirus crisis to build and enforce a more intense surveillance and control regime. This goes beyond censorship to produce and promote ‘positive news’ about China’s efforts to fight the pandemic, alongside ‘negative news’ that criticises how Italy, the USA and other countries deal with it.”
Aynne Kokos, assistant professor at the department of media studies, University of Virginia, said: “I think there will be a slight loosening of inbound investment restrictions to support economic recovery. However, all indications suggest that the information environment will actually be more tightly controlled.”
“Whether or not the coronavirus dents China’s image depends on how successfully other countries respond as well as what happens when people in China return to work,” she said
Christina Maags, lecturer in Chinese politics at SOAS, University of London, said:
“While the Chinese economy is suffering losses, it is also multi-national companies like Apple who are eager to find a quick solution so as to stop the delay in production and resulting negative impact on supply chains worldwide. Therefore, I think Xi and multinational companies both have interests in “reviving” the Chinese economy.”
The world can only wait to see whether China will be more desperate to encourage economic activity after the coronavirus outbreak, or things stay the same. However, the importance that the authorities have placed on managing the message has led to dozens of prominent brands issuing public apologies in China over recent years, a sign of how powerful the Chinese government has become. Household names incurring the wrath of the Chinese authorities range from Disney, for featuring a Tibetan monk in an animation (the screenwriter later changed the character to a white woman after acknowledging the company “risked alienating a billion people” who did not recognise Tibet as a place), to gaming group Red Candle, which included artwork comparing President Xi Jinping with Winnie the Pooh in one of its games (Xi is known to take offence to such comparisons). Meanwhile, catwalk brands Versace and Givenchy felt the need to say sorry for recognising Taiwan as a country.
China’s influence over foreign companies seeking access to its consumer market has been growing over the past few years. But those who trade freedom for profit risk reputational damage among consumers who care about the consequences of reneging on free speech.
“The Chinese government has become more aggressive in getting foreign companies to comply with whatever foreign demands they have and silencing people,” said Yaqiu Wang, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “By caving into the Chinese demands you are putting your values [aside] – social responsibility, freedom. It is really corrosive. You are affecting the global freedom of speech.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fas fa-quote-left” size=”xl”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”The world can only wait to see whether China will be more desperate to encourage economic activity after the coronavirus outbreak, or things stay the same” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Companies that comply with Chinese demands risk setting dangerous precedents and they make it easier for other national leaders to exact similar demands. Apple, which has come under fire for supporting the Chinese government during the Hong Kong protests, has recently been criticised in India after censoring its local Apple TV programmes, just as freedom of speech and assembly is being threatened under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
During the coronavirus outbreak China has been doubling down on its censorship of online forums as it seeks to control narratives around the disease. On 31 December, a day after doctors tried to warn the public about the then unknown virus, YY, a live-streaming platform, added 45 words to its blacklist, according to Citizen Lab. WeChat, a messaging app with a billion users, also censored coronavirus-related content.
Censored material included references to Li Wenliang, a doctor who had been silenced by police for trying to warn about theoutbreak, and neutral references to efforts on handling the outbreak.
The death of Li started a digital uprising (#WeWantFreedomOfSpeech), with people calling for online censorship to be lifted.
Kevin Latham, senior lecturer in social anthropology at the SOAS, University of London, China Institute, said: “The narrative on censorship has shifted over the weeks a bit. At the beginning it was clear they were much more open and quicker to act publicly than with Sars in the past – they appeared to have learned that lesson.
“However, once the story about the death of Li Wenliang came out, that narrative was undermined to some degree.”
There is little reason to expect things to change, in other words.
What’s the story so far? Apple blocks more than 370 apps in China, according to Chinese security experts Great Fire, including the virtual proxy networks that allow people to vault over firewalls. The company has failed to lift restrictions despite renewed pressure arising during the pandemic. Its decision to block a map app used by protesters in Hong Kong, taken a few months before, was also called out by critics.
Apple chief executive Tim Cook has defended the decision as borne of legal necessity.
“We would obviously rather not remove the apps but, like we do in other countries, we follow the law wherever we do business,” he said in 2017. “We strongly believe participating in markets and bringing benefits to customers is in the best interest of the folks there and in other countries as well.”
Wang said: “They say they are simply complying with local laws when we all know what they really care about is market access.”
Apple is not the only tech company criticised for capitulation. Last year, Google tried to build its own filtered search engine for China but the idea was scrapped following an outcry from its employees.
Jeremy Daum, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, says that while strict laws do exist, many statutes are written in a vague and sweeping manner, so it can be hard to know what the legal obligations really are. “In some cases it can be as vague as not publishing content that harms the nation’s interests,” he said.
Daum highlights the importance of distinguishing between enforced censorship and corporate acquiescence.
“Complicity sounds like they share a common goal of censorship, [but] the companies’ goals are profit, so they are not complicit in motive – It’s acquiescence,” he said.
The challenges to the power dynamic will centre on China’s influence to change content coming from beyond its borders. Apple TV has already issued guidelines to its programme makers to avoid criticism of China.
Ultimately, harming freedom of expression hits society’s most vulnerable, and those with the weakest voices, the most.
“Censorship isn’t just about politics,” said Karen Reilly, a community director at GreatFire.org, which tracks censorship in China.
“Censorship blocks people from reaching their communities and this is especially harmful to marginalised and young people. Online spaces are sources of support. If you grow up with censorship, your connection to your own culture may be cut off.”
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Additional research by Orna Herr and Adam Aiken
Charlotte Middlehurst is a London-based journalist specialising in Chinese current affairs. She tweets at @charmiddle
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
The piece is part of the 2020 spring issue of Index on Censorship magazine. Buy a copy or subscribe here.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Why and when we chose to censor ourselves and give away our privacy” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left”][vc_column_text]The spring 2020 Index on Censorship magazine looks at how we are sometimes complicit in our own censorship[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”112723″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
We are currently working hard to ensure that our new website is in perfect working order so we can continue to bring you the latest news, views and content from around the world. You may find that some pages are currently offline or that you are unable to find something that you are looking for. This is only temporary - and we apologise for any convenience this may cause.
Please consider subscribing to our weekly newsletter below, so that you are among the first to hear from our contributors and don't miss anything in future.
Thanks for your understanding.
?
STAY INFORMED.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
?
SUPPORT OUR WORK
Index on Censorship’s work is only possible because of donations from people like you.
Please consider chipping in to help us give a voice to the voiceless:
