Warning: Undefined array key "label" in /home/jwkxumhx/public_html/newsite02may/wp-content/themes/Divi/includes/builder/class-et-builder-element.php on line 8927
Index on Censorship | A voice for the persecuted
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/jwkxumhx/public_html/newsite02may/wp-content/plugins/expand-divi/inc/ExpandDiviSetup.php on line 217

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/jwkxumhx/public_html/newsite02may/wp-content/plugins/expand-divi/inc/ExpandDiviSetup.php on line 218

Article 13: Monitoring and filtering of internet content is unacceptable

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Dear President Juncker,

Dear President Tajani,

Dear President Tusk,

Dear Prime Minister Ratas,

Dear Prime Minister Borissov,

Dear Ministers,

Dear MEP Voss, MEP Boni

The undersigned stakeholders represent fundamental rights organisations.

Fundamental rights, justice and the rule of law are intrinsically linked and constitute core values on which the EU is founded. Any attempt to disregard these values undermines the mutual trust between member states required for the EU to function. Any such attempt would also undermine the commitments made by the European Union and national governments to their citizens.

Article 13 of the proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market include obligations on internet companies that would be impossible to respect without the imposition of excessive restrictions on citizens’ fundamental rights.

Article 13 introduces new obligations on internet service providers that share and store user-generated content, such as video or photo-sharing platforms or even creative writing websites, including obligations to filter uploads to their services. Article 13 appears to provoke such legal uncertainty that online services will have no other option than to monitor, filter and block EU citizens’ communications if they are to have any chance of staying in business.

Article 13 contradicts existing rules and the case law of the Court of Justice. The Directive of Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC) regulates the liability for those internet companies that host content on behalf of their users. According to the existing rules, there is an obligation to remove any content that breaches copyright rules, once this has been notified to the provider.

Article 13 would force these companies to actively monitor their users‘ content, which contradicts the ‘no general obligation to monitor’ rules in the Electronic Commerce Directive. The requirement to install a system for filtering electronic communications has twice been rejected by the Court of Justice, in the cases Scarlet Extended (C 70/10) and Netlog/Sabam (C 360/10). Therefore, a legislative provision that requires internet companies to install a filtering system would almost certainly be rejected by the Court of Justice because it would contravene the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business and the right to freedom of expression, such as to receive or impart information, on the other.

In particular, the requirement to filter content in this way would violate the freedom of expression set out in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If internet companies are required to apply filtering mechanisms in order to avoid possible liability, they will. This will lead to excessive filtering and deletion of content and limit the freedom to impart information on the one hand, and the freedom to receive information on the other.

If EU legislation conflicts with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, national constitutional courts are likely to be tempted to disapply it and we can expect such a rule to be annulled by the Court of Justice. This is what happened with the Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC), when EU legislators ignored compatibility problems with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In 2014, the Court of Justice declared the Data Retention Directive invalid because it violated the Charter.

Taking into consideration these arguments, we ask the relevant policy-makers to delete Article 13.

 

Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties)

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

Access Info

ActiveWatch

Article 19

Associação D3 – Defesa dos Direitos Digitais

Associação Nacional para o Software Livre (ANSOL)

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Association for Technology and Internet (ApTI)

Association of the Defence of Human Rights in Romania  (APADOR)

Associazione Antigone

Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)

Bits of Freedom (BoF)

BlueLink Foundation

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

Centre for Peace Studies

Centrum Cyfrowe

Coalizione Italiana Libertà e Diritti Civili (CILD)

Code for Croatia

COMMUNIA

Culture Action Europe

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

epicenter.works

Estonian Human Rights Centre

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Frënn vun der Ënn

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights

Human Rights Monitoring Institute

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Without Frontiers

Hungarian Civil Liberties Union

Index on Censorship

International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR)

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

Internautas

JUMEN

Justice & Peace

La Quadrature du Net

Media Development Centre

Miklos Haraszti (Former OSCE Media Representative)

Modern Poland Foundation

Netherlands Helsinki Committee

One World Platform

Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI)

Open Rights Group (ORG)

OpenMedia

Panoptykon

Plataforma en Defensa de la Libertad de Información (PDLI)

Reporters without Borders (RSF)

Rights International Spain

South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)

South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)

Statewatch

The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia (RTKNS)

Xnet

 

CC: Permanent and Deputy Permanent Representatives of the Members States to the EU

CC: Chairs of the JURI and LIBE Committees in the European Parliament

CC: Shadow Rapporteurs and MEPs in the JURI and LIBE Committees in the European Parliament

CC: Secretariats of the JURI and LIBE Committees in the European Parliament

CC: Secretariat of the Council Working Party on Intellectual Property (Copyright)

CC: Secretariat of the Council Working on Competition

CC: Secretariat of the Council Research Working Party[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1508140671158-363c6122-72fc-4″ taxonomies=”16927″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Index at the Battle of Ideas festival

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96059″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]In a rapidly changing world, debating ideas matters more than ever. The Battle of Ideas festival, at The Barbican in London, provides a unique forum to discuss the big issues of our time.

Index on Censorship will be participating in panel discussions: CEO Jodie Ginsberg will discuss censorship and identity politics on Sunday 29 October from 2-3:30pm; Assistant editor Ryan McChrystal will debate political activism and protest on Sunday 29 October from 12-1pm.

We’ll also be manning a booth in the main hall. Stop by for a tattoo and talk to the friendly Index staff about our organisation’s work defending freedom of expression.

See the full programme for the Battle of Ideas festival here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

When: 28-29 October
Where: The Barbican
Tickets: Via Battle of Ideas

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Buffer zones have potential to set a dangerous precedent

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A vote by Ealing Council that could see anti-abortion protesters banned from demonstrating outside a clinic in a bid to protect women from harassment raises troubling implications for freedom of expression.

Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg said: “We support people’s right to protest publicly and openly. In a free and democratic society that may mean hearing things that shock, offend or disturb. However, protesters do not have the right to physically intimidate others or prevent their free movement. Nevertheless, the suggested use of buffer zones by a London council to prevent protests has the potential to set a dangerous precedent that could be used against all forms of speech – including those who wish to protest on environmental or political issues, for example. Buffer zones are too a blunt tool to deal with public protests. We have legislation that deals with harassment and maintaining public access. Protesters who block the free movement of others or physically harass others could be pursued under that legislation.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][vc_custom_heading text=”Stay up to date on free expression” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join the our mailing list and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1507825054163-140d08ec-3391-5″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Risky business: Bookselling in Libya

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”The dangers of selling “the wrong” kind of book in Libya are many and varied and yet one chain of bookshops is still open for business. Charlotte Bailey speaks to a bookseller in Tripoli”][vc_column_text]

A street in Tripoli. Credit: David Stanley/Flickr

A street in Tripoli. Credit: David Stanley/Flickr

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

“One of my brothers is still active with the bookshop. The other two, they are kind of scared. They don’t go much anymore,” said Ghassan Fergiani, managing director of the London-based Darf Publishers.

His brothers run Dar Fergiani, a bookselling and publishing business in the Libyan capital Tripoli. The bookshops have remained open despite the brutal civil war that started in 2011, killing thousands and splintering the country into three governments and a vast number of militia groups.

“They got tired of it, the fear,” he continued.

Dar Fergiani is a family firm and what Fergiani calls his legacy. His father, Mohammed Fergiani, started out with three bookshops in Tripoli in 1952 and, a few years later, opened a publishing house. In Libya’s post-independence period, he enjoyed relative freedom to publish and sell the books.

“There was some censorship, but not much,” said Fergiani.

But in 1969 Muammar Gaddafi seized power and four years later launched what he called a cultural revolution, with the aim of removing all traces of imported ideologies and all signs of foreign influence. Books the authorities considered problematic were burned. A few years later Gaddafi published his Green Book, which outlined his governing principles. The chapter on the media banned private ownership of publishing companies.

“In the late 1970s, they confiscated all his shops, all his stock, all his staff, everything,” Fergiani said.

Arrests and assassinations then forced Mohammed Fergiani to London. “My father feared for his life,” Fergiani explained. Not knowing when, or if, he would be able to return, he founded Darf Publishers in the UK.

But after Gaddafi implemented a series of more internationally friendly policies in the 1990s, Mohammed Fergiani decided to go back. He repurchased the stock the government had seized and began cautiously selling books again. “He had to be very careful,” said Fergiani.

A key demand of the protesters who overthrew Gaddafi in the 2011 revolution was freedom of expression. And, in the immediate aftermath, there was more space for different voices. Citizen journalism became more common and there was a proliferation of television, radio and print publications.

“Everybody was excited. We started selling books critical of Gaddafi. We published a book about democracy.”

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”2/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”We started selling books critical of Gaddafi. We published a book about democracy” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]

The different types of books available, from niche non-fiction to international bestsellers, and a renewed interest in Libya more generally, led to a spike in demand at the stores. People flocked to the three smart, airy shops with their white stone floors and large windows in the Italian-era streets that lead off from Martyrs’ Square in the north and Hay Al Andalus further west.

The initial excitement did not last long. This area, where once the well-heeled frequented cafes and did their shopping, has become the site of violent clashes. This violence alone has put people off visiting the bookshops.

Today, the legal environment in Libya remains poor for booksellers and publishers. While a constitutional declaration passed in August 2011 provides limited protection for freedom of opinion, communications and the media, it does not fully reflect international standards for freedom of expression and does not abolish censorship. Under Law 5, passed in 2014, any statements that could harm or prejudice the 2011 revolution or insult the executive, judiciary or legislature, are punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The deteriorating political and security situation has created a chaotic and dangerous media environment. Foreign journalists hardly ever visit.

The Tripoli-based internationally-backed Government of National Accord operates a censorship board, which Fergiani said has a haphazard approach that makes it difficult to predict what will be allowed. After success with Chewing Gum, the debut novel of the Libyan author Mansour Bushnaf with Darf Publishers in London, Fergiani tried to publish it in Arabic with Dar Fergiani in Tripoli. “We submitted it to the censorship board, but they rejected it,” Fergiani said. The board gave no reason for its decision.

Speaking to Index from Benghazi in Libya, Nada Elfeituri, founder of the grassroots group Young Writers of Benghazi, said: “It’s frustrating when I can’t find a popular book written by a Libyan inside my own country. Libya doesn’t have many books, libraries or publishing houses.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Forces loyal to Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar were accused of burning 6,000 books” 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]

“There were several initiatives to introduce a wider variety of books, even ones that might be considered taboo, but again that became restricted as different government groups controlled the books that entered the country,” she said.

In January, for example, forces loyal to Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar were accused of burning 6,000 books in the east of the country. These books included works of philosophy by Friedrich Nietzsche. In a video of the book seizure posted online, an officer said the books promoted violence, sorcery, eroticism and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Meanwhile, there is a constant threat from militia groups. Numbers suggest there are up to 2,000 militia groups, all with different ideas about what should and shouldn’t be published.

“Sometimes somebody tells them this is a bad book for one reason. Another time, a different militia takes your book out for a different reason,” said Fergiani, who explained that recently a militant came into one of the shops and demanded that they rearrange the show window to give priority to religious books. Three people who work at Dar Fergiani bookshops have also been arrested in Tripoli on different occasions and were only released after a complex set of negotiations.

“That is the pressure that in Libya we live under. It doesn’t have to be a government or a dictator. It can be anybody.

“You start fearing for your life. You start saying – OK I don’t want to do this. What am I in it for?”

These problems are compounded by the exceptionally difficult economic environment in Libya. The World Bank said in 2016 that the economy was on the verge of collapse. The currency has crashed, making Dar Fergiani books expensive. There are regular city-wide power cuts, an intermittent water supply and very little internet.

Despite this, Dar Fergiani has remained open six days a week throughout the war and Fergiani continues to travel to Tripoli frequently for work.

“Just don’t ask us why we do it,” said Fergiani.

When pushed on the answer to that question he added: “As a publisher and a bookseller you want to promote certain books. You want people to be exposed to different ideas.

“But it’s hard.”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Charlotte Bailey is a freelance journalist writing for newspapers including The Guardian. She used to live in Beirut, Lebanon where she worked for the Daily Star 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80561″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422014535686″][vc_custom_heading text=”Enemies of the people” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422014535686|||”][vc_column_text]June 2014

Writer Matthias Biskupek took part in demonstrations in East Germany as the Berlin Wall came down. He looks back at the attempts to censor books and theatre.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”92001″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030642208701600510″][vc_custom_heading text=”The media under Gadaffi” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F030642208701600510|||”][vc_column_text]May 1987

An interview with Fadel Al-Messaoudi, who believes the media has been directly controlled by the government since the cultural revolution of 1973.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”94326″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228108533267″][vc_custom_heading text=”Censorship and Col Gadaffi” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228108533267|||”][vc_column_text]October 1981

Libyan journalist exiled in Spain, F. el-Manssoury, reports on soldiers’ accounts of censorship in Libya from first-hand knowledge of the early President Gaddafi’s regime.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Free to air” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2F2017%2F09%2Ffree-to-air%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, the autumn 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores how radio has been reborn and is innovating ways to deliver news in war zones, developing countries and online

With: Ismail Einashe, Peter Bazalgette, Wana Udobang[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”95458″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/2017/09/free-to-air/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][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.

SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

58 NGOs support motion for dismissal of PACE president Pedro Agramunt

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Pedro Agramunt

Pedro Agramunt. Credit: European People’s Party/Flickr

Update: On 6 October 2017, Pedro Agramunt announced his resignation as President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

We, members of the NGO coalition the Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP) and other NGOs across Europe, welcome the recent motion for dismissal of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Pedro Agramunt put forward by 158 members of the Assembly. We urge all its members to support this motion at the forthcoming session of the Assembly on 9 October 2017.

The no-confidence motion marks a historic opportunity to start the process of rebuilding PACE’s reputation as a defender of human rights and the rule of law.The Assembly has, for far too long, tolerated unethical and corrupt behaviour by some of its members,

The Assembly has, for far too long, tolerated unethical and corrupt behaviour by some of its members, as exposed in a number of credible investigative reports by several highly reputable NGOs and the media, most recently in the Azerbaijani Laundromat report by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and publications in over a dozen of media outlets in a number of European countries in September 2017. Unethical fostering of interests and corruption lasting for many years in PACE have strongly damaged the credibility of the Council of Europe.

The Assembly has allowed corrupt practices by certain governments of its member states, in particular Azerbaijan, to undermine its commitment to uphold fundamental values of human rights and democracy in the Council of Europe member states. This has dismayed human rights defenders in the Eastern Partnership states and beyond who looked to PACE and other representative bodies such as the European Parliament for support in defending these values.

The recent establishment of an independent external Investigation Body by PACE and plans to overhaul the PACE Code of Conduct for Members and to adopt declaratory requirements give us hope that the much-needed renewal of the Assembly will be irreversible and will not stop with the departure of the disgraced President. It also serves notice to all current and former members of PACE that corrupt practices will no longer be tolerated and enjoy impunity. This process must continue after the end of 2017 when the Independent Body is due to report and should lead to an investigation of allegations of corruption by the law enforcement bodies at the national level.

The investigations by OCCRP and others show that democratic parliamentary assemblies in the free world must remain vigilant against threats to their integrity from unscrupulous and cynical governments. Otherwise, the hope and support that these assemblies can extend to political prisoners and democrats who are working for human rights, free and fair elections, and the rule of law in the Council of Europe countries and elsewhere will continue to be undermined.

Signed by the following organisations:

1. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
2. Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
3. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
4. Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan” (Kyrgyzstan)
5. International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
6. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law (Kazakhstan)
7. Public Verdict Foundation (Russia)
8. Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Georgia/Azerbaijan)
9. Promo LEX (Moldova)
10. The Netherlands Helsinki Committee (Netherlands)
11. Centre de la Protection Internationale (France)
12. Citizens’ Watch (Russia)
13. Committee Against Torture (Russia)
14. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
15. Human Rights Centre “Viasna” (Belarus)
16. Association UMDPL (Ukraine)
17. Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
18. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (Belgium)
19. Helsinki Committee of Armenia (Armenia)
20. Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Belarus/Lithuania)
21. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor (Armenia)
22. Institute of Public Affairs (Poland)
23. Freedom Files (Russia/Poland)
24. Libereco – Partnership for Human Rights (Germany/Switzerland)
25. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria)
26. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative” (Ukraine)
27. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
28. Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
29. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (Serbia)
30. Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway)
31. Public Association “Dignity” (Kazakhstan)
32. Human Rights Information Center (Ukraine)
33. “Protection of Rights without Borders” (Armenia)
34. Crude Accountability (USA)
35. DRA – German-Russian Exchange (Germany)
36. Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety (IRFS) (Azerbaijan)
37. Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
38. Albanian Helsinki Committee (Albania)
39. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (Ukraine)
40. Sova Center for Information and Analysis (Russia)
41. Kosova Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (Kosovo)
42. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
43. Article 19 (United Kingdom)
44. Human Rights Matter (Germany)
45. Helsinki Association for Human Rights (Armenia)
46. Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
47. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (Ukraine)
48. Office of Civil Freedoms (Tajikistan)
49. Women of the Don (Russia)
50. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
51. Media Rights Institute (Azerbaijan)
52. Batory Foundation (Poland)
53. International Youth Human Rights Movement
54. Institute for Peace and Democracy (Netherlands/Azerbaijan)
55. Monitoring Centre for Political Prisoners (Azerbaijan)
56. Democratic Civil Union of Turkmenistan (Turkmenistan/Netherlands)
57. Public Alliance “Azerbaijan without Political Prisoners” (Azerbaijan)
58. Humanrights.ch (Switzerland)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

#FreeToAir: Index’s autumn magazine launch hails the rebirth of radio

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Despite predictions of its death, the retro medium of radio is back. From community-based stations like London’s RTS Radio, which encourages voices not heard on mainstream stations, to the renaissance of the podcast, on-the-air and online streaming options are experiencing a surge in popularity.

Hosted by Index on Censorship magazine editor Rachael Jolley, the panel exploring radio’s present and future included Jamie Angus, deputy director of the BBC World Service Group, broadcaster and DJ Tabitha Thorlu-Bangura from NTS Live, and broadcaster and writer Mark Frary, who also ran a short DIY podcasting workshop before the discussion.

The discussion from our panellists was wide-ranging – from the challenges of reporting in war zones to emerging DJ’s creating new sounds from their bedrooms, from terror organisations using radio as propaganda to young people rejecting social media for podcasts.

The event, which was aired by Resonance FM, was held to launch the autumn 2017 magazine with its special report Free to Air: Why the Rebirth of Radio is Delivering More News at the iconic Tea Building in Shoreditch, home to digital product studio Ustwo. Drinks were provided by Flying Dog Brewery, our freedom of expression chums and sponsors.

Special thanks to SAGE Publishing, Index on Censorship magazine’s publisher and sponsor.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1508172105138-9c5eed94-7529-8″ include=”96011,96010,96012,95983,95986,95987,95989,95992,95993,95995,95996,95998,96001″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Joint submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Azerbaijan

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Executive Summary

1. The submitting organisations welcome the opportunity to contribute to the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Azerbaijan. This submission focuses on compliance with international human rights obligations with respect to freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly and of association, in particular concerns relating to:

  • Constitutional amendments;
  • Safety of journalists;
  • Forced closure and harassment of independent media outlets;
  • Arbitrary arrests and arbitrary detentions of critics, and allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in detention;
  • Legislative restrictions to freedom of expression online;
  • Legislative restrictions to freedom of association;
  • Legislative restrictions to freedom of peaceful assembly.   

2. The Azerbaijani Government has failed to implement many of the recommendations relating to each of these issues accepted during its last UPR, with the situation deteriorating quite significantly in the period under review.

Constitutional amendments
3. Amendments to the Constitution of Azerbaijan were approved through a hasty referendum in September 2016, without any Parliamentary debate or scrutiny of the proposals, and amid a crackdown on journalists, activists and groups opposed to the amendments, preventing voters from having access to all relevant information and opinions. The referendum was also plagued by reports of irregularities, including ballot stuffing and fraud.(1) The Venice Commission also raised concerns that the referendum did not comply with even national legal requirements.(2)

4. The amendments include provisions with deleterious impacts on the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association in Azerbaijan, including by consolidating the powers of the President and weakening democratic checks and balances, including by weakening the Courts.(3) Article 32 of the Constitution was amended to ostensibly protect against the publication of information about a person’s private life, but its broad scope potentially limits the ability of journalists and others to report information about public officials that are in the public interest. Article 47(III) was amended to prohibit propaganda provoking “hostility based on any other criteria”, which similarly may be applied to limit dissent against the requirements of international human rights law, while Article 49(II) of the Constitution was amended to enable sweeping restrictions on assemblies to prevent the disruption of “public order or public morale”.

5. These Constitutional amendments, and the weakening of the judiciary, further undermine the efforts of civil society, human rights defenders and others to bring national law into compliance with Azerbaijan’s international human rights law obligations, and to secure accountability for human rights violations.

Recommendations

  • Initiate reforms to bring the Constitution of Azerbaijan in line with international human rights law, with full and effective public participation, and full Parliamentary scrutiny.

Safety of journalists

6. During its last UPR, the Azerbaijani government accepted 8 recommendations(4) related to ensuring the safety of journalists, including by conducting impartial, thorough and effective investigations into all cases of attacks harassment and intimidation against them, and by bringing perpetrators of such offences to justice.(5) These recommendations have not been implemented, with impunity for attacks against journalists and media workers cultivating a climate of self-censorship.

7. There is still total impunity for the March 2005 murder of Monitor magazine editor-in-chief Elmar Huseynov, as well as for the November 2011 murder of prominent writer and journalist Rafig Tagi.

8. In the period of review, the following cases are highlighted as evidence that impunity, as well as lack of adequate prevention and protection measures, are a continuing problem:

  • On 28 April 2017, the blogger Mehman Galandarov was reportedly found dead in his jail cell, and the authorities claim he hanged himself. However, an independent autopsy was never performed, the body was not released and no public investigation was conducted. Civil society representatives refute that Galandarov had reason to commit suicide and that to do so inside his cell would have been extremely difficult.
  • On 9 August 2015, well-known journalist and human rights activist Rasim Aliyev, died from injuries sustained from an attack the day before. Previously, on 25 July 2015, Aliyev reported he had received anonymous threats related to photos of police brutality he had posted online. Despite filing a complaint with the police, no action was taken to protect Aliyev or investigate the threats. While several of the people who physically attacked Aliyev were imprisoned in Mary 2016, the link with his journalistic work was never investigated and it appears the masterminds remain at large. In 2012 – 2014, Rasim Aliyev was part of IRFS’ research and investigation team that conducted alternative investigations into murders and attacks of journalists and media workers.
  • In June 2015, the Director of Meydan TV and former political prisoner, Emin Milli, reported to the German police that he had received a threat, via an intermediary, from the Azerbaijani Minister of Youth and Sport, Azad Rahimov, in connection with his critical reporting on the 2015 European Games, held in Baku. Milli has publically stated that he believes the threat can be traced directly to President Aliyev, arguing that Rahimov would not have acted without presidential approval. (6) 

Recommendations

Enact measures to ensure the safety of journalists, in line with Human Rights Council resolution 33/2,(7) including, inter alia:

  • Publicly, unequivocally and systematically condemn violence and attacks against journalists;
  • Ensure impartial, speedy, thorough, independent and effective investigations, that also seek to bring masterminds behind attacks to justice, and to ensure victims and their families have access to appropriate remedies, in particular in the cases of Mehman Galandarov, Rasim Aliyev, Elmar Huseynov and Rafig Tagi;
  • Create special investigative units and specialised prosecutors, and adopt specific protocols and methods of investigation and prosecution, as well as trainings for key actors in the investigative and prosecutorial processes;
  • Systematically collect data to inform policy making on safety of journalists; and,
  • Establish protection mechanisms, including early warning and rapid response systems.

Arbitrary arrests and detentions of critics
9. During its last UPR, Azerbaijan accepted 16 recommendations(8) related to ensuring that human rights defenders, lawyers and other civil society actors are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear or threat of reprisal, obstruction or legal and administrative harassment. Similar recommendations were accepted in relation to the treatment of journalists and writers, including that defamation should be decriminalised.(9)

10. Nevertheless, in the period under review Azerbaijan has continued its practice of targeting critical or dissenting voices with politically motivated arrests on spurious charges, extended pre-trial detentions (ranging from months to more than a year) and custodial sentences. The UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, who visited Azerbaijan in May 2016, have noted that, notwithstanding the release of some high profile prisoners, the practice of the government to detain those with oppositional views continues, in violation of their international human rights law obligations.(10)

11. The Azerbaijani authorities arbitrarily arrest individuals for engaging in dissent and release them as a mechanism of control. There are often waves of arbitrary arrests and detentions prior to and around significant events, for example in the run up to and after the European Olympic Games in 2014 and the Formula 1 Grand Prix in 2015. As of August 2017, civil society activists within Azerbaijan estimate there to be 158 confirmed political prisoners. (11, 12)

12. Individuals arbitrarily arrested or detained for their political opposition include:

    • Ilgar Mammadov, the chairman of political opposition party REAL, was arrested in 2013 on fabricated charges of “inciting violence” and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Despite a May 2014 European Court of Human Rights ruling, which concluded that Mammadov’s arrest took place with the goal “to silence or punish him for criticising the government” and violated his rights under the Convention.(13) In September 2017 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe called again for Mammadov’s release, initiating infringement proceedings against the country.(14) However, he remains behind bars.
    • In May 2017, Gozel Bayramli, a high-level official of the opposition Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan (APFP), was detained by Azerbaijani authorities on her return from Georgia where she had been receiving medical treatment.(15)  Bayramli was accused of smuggling after border police claimed to have found an undeclared USD 12,000 in her bag and placed in pretrial detention.
    • In January 2017, APFP’s deputy chairman Fuad Gahramanli was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, on a number of charges after being arrested in December 2015.
    • In March 2016, an APFP advisor Mammad Ibrahim, was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on hooliganism charges, having been arrested in September 2015.

13. Arbitrarily arrested and detained journalists and bloggers, include:

  • Mehman Huseynov, well known photo-journalist and blogger. Repeatedly detained, he was imprisoned in March 2017 to 2 years imprisonment under Article 147.2 (slander, which relates to accusation of committing serious or especially serious crime).
  • Seymur Hazi, a journalist who wrote for Azadlıq and presented the internet program Azerbaijan Hour was arrested in August 2014, sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment in January 2015 under Article 221.3 (hooliganism, committed using items used as a weapon).
  • Aziz Orujov, the director of internet TV Kanal 13, was arrested on 1 June 2017 and his being held in pretrial detention under Articles 192.2.2 (Implementation of business activity without a licence), and 308.2 (abuse of official powers).
  • Nijat Aliyev, the editor-in-chief of www.azadxeber.az, a religious-oriented website of a critical nature, was arrested on 21 May 2012.  On 9 December 2013, Aliyev was sentenced to 10 years in prison under Articles 167.2.2.1, 234.1, 281.2 and 283.2.3 (ranging from drugs distribution to inciting religious hatred).
  • Araz Guliyev, was the editor-in-chief of www.xeber44.com online newspaper, was arrested on 9 September 2012. He was sentenced to  8 years in jail on 5 April 2013 under Articles 228.1, 233, 283.1, 315.2 and 324 (ranging from gun possession, to inciting hatred)
  • Fikrat Ibishbayli, also known as Faramazoglu, is editor-in-chief of www.jam.az the portal of the
    Journalistic Investigation Center, was arrested on 30 June 2016. On 14 June 2017, he was sentenced to 7 years under Articles 182.2.1, 182.2.2, 182.2.4 (large scale extortion).
  • Afgan Sadigov, an editor in chief of the www.azel.tv website, was arrested on 22November 2016. He was sentenced to 2.5 years imprisonment on 12 January 2017, under Article 127.2.3. (Causing serious harm).
  • Rashad Ramazanov, an active micro-blogger using social media sites, was arrested on 9 May 2013. On 13 November 2013, he was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment under Article 234.4.3 (Illegal purchase or storage of drugs with intent to sell).
  • Elchin Ismayilli,(16) founder and editor of Kend.info, an online news portal, was since arrested on 17 February 2017. On 18 September 2017, the Sheki Court for Grave Crimes sentenced Elchin Ismayilli to 9 years imprisonment. The court found him guilty under articles 182 (extortion of money by threats), 308 (abuse of office) and 311 (bribery).
  • Javid Shiraliyev the founder and editor-in-chief of the 7gun.az news portal was sentenced on May 22, 2016 to five years in prison for extortion.(17)
  • In an alarming development, Afgan Mukhtarli, a journalist and political activist, was kidnapped in Tbilisi, Georgia on 29 May 2017 and forcibly taken to Azerbaijan, where he reappeared a day after disappearing. He is accused of illegal border crossing and smuggling. His case has caused considerable distress to other Azerbaijani critics living in exile in Georgia.
  • Most recently, Mehman Aliyev, who is not related to the ruling family but is a veteran journalist and director of Turan News Agency, was arrested in August 2017 on spurious charges of tax evasion, abuse of power, and illegal entrepreneurship. Though released from custody on 11 September 2017, he was placed under police supervision and the criminal charges against him have not been dropped.

14. The following writers and poets have been arbitrarily arrested and detained:

  • Tofiq Hasanli, a poet who expressed his criticism in satirical poets and posted them on his Youtube channel before spreading them through social networking sites, was arrested on 12 October 2015. On 22 August 2016, he was sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment under Article 234.4.3.
  • Saday Shakarli, a poet was arrested on 23 December 2015 after the poet published his book Qurd ürəyi (Wolf heart). On 16 May 2016, he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment under Article 182.2.4 (extortion).

15. The following civil society actors have also been arbitrarily arrested and detained in the period under review:

  • On 26 May 2014, Anar Mammadli, Chairman of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre (EMDSC), was sentenced to five and a half years on charges of appropriation in significant size, tax evasion, illegal enterprise and abuse of power. He was originally arrested in December 2013 after criticising the October 2013 presidential electoral process. He was released by presidential pardon on 17 March 2016.
  • In the summer of 2014, Rasul Jafarov, head of the “Human Rights Club”, Leyla Yunus, Director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, and her husband and historian Arif Yunus, were arrested, just ahead of the publication of a comprehensive list of political prisoners in Azerbaijan that Jafarov and Leyla Yunus were compiling. Jafarov was sentenced in 2014 to 6.5 years’ imprisonment under Articles 192 (illegal business), 213 (tax evasion) and 308 (abuse of power), but was released by presidential pardon on 17 March 2016. In August 2015, Leyla Yunus was sentenced to 8.5 years’ imprisonment, while Arif Yunus was sentenced to 7 years on charges including fraud and tax evasion. Both were subsequently released from prison in late 2015 on the grounds of ill health.
  • Aliabbas Rustamov, head of the Yasavul Law Firm, remains in prison since June 2014. Prior to his arrest, Rustamov had applied to become a legal counsel for Anar Mammadli (above). Sentenced in November 2015 to 7 years on charges relating to bribing an official, his sentence was reduced by one year in January 2017.

16. The following activists have been arbitrarily arrested and detained:

  • On 6 May 2014, Ilkin Rustamzade, a member of the Free Youth organization and the National Council, was sentenced to 8 years in prison on charges of organising mass disorder and hooliganism.(18) Rustamzade was detained in May 2013 as part of the same criminal investigation in which seven youth activists of the N!DA Civic Movement were arrested, each later receiving sentences ranging from six to eight years. All were subsequently released, with the exception of Rustamzade, who remains imprisoned.
  • In May 2016, two N!DA activists Giyas Ibrahimov and Bayram Mammadov were arrested after they painted graffiti on a statue of former President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev in Baku. Both were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in December 2016, on fabricated charges of drug possession. Notably, the judge made the unprecedented decision to issue a harsher sentence than the one requested by prosecutor.
  • In January 2017, Elgiz Gahraman, also an N!DA activist, was sentenced to 5.5 years on fabricated drug related charges.(19)

17. Released political prisoners are commonly unable to return to their previous work and political activities. Many have not had convictions quashed, are under surveillance, face travel bans, and ongoing harassment:

  • On 22 April 2015, Intigam Aliyev,(20) Chairman of the Legal Education Society and award-winning human rights lawyer, was sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment on charges of tax evasion (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan), illegal enterprise (Article 192) and abuse of power (Article 308.2). In March 2016 he was released when the Azerbaijan Supreme Court reduced his sentence to a five years’ suspended term, but the charges have not been quashed. As a consequence, Aliyev cannot run for public office.
  • Prominent investigative journalist, Khadija Ismayilova, was released after 16 months’ detention in May 2016, after the Supreme Court commuted her sentence of 7.5 years’ imprisonment for the absurd charge of “incitement to suicide” to a 3.5 year suspended sentence. Ismayilova is still subject to restrictions on her movement, including a travel ban.

18. The family members in Azerbaijan of dissidents living abroad have also been targeted:

  • In December 2016, three relatives of Jamal Ali, a rapper now based in Berlin, were called into the police in Baku shortly after Ali posted a satirical new years’ video, which mocked Azerbaijan’s recent arrests of youth activists from the N!DA movement.
  • On 18 February 2017, 12 family members of Ordukhan Teymurkhan, a blogger now based in the Netherlands, were questioned by police to pressure Teymurkhan to stop his activism. Two of his relatives were sentenced to administrative detention.

19. During its last UPR, the Azerbaijan authorities accepted recommendations to enhance the role of the Ombudsman as a preventative mechanism against torture.(21) However, as the Working Group also noted, there are serious and credible allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment against those detained for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, which are not adequately investigated. These include the case of Bayram Mammadov (above)(22). Mehman Huseynov, a popular blogger known for exposing corruption among Azerbaijani officials, who was convicted to two years’ imprisonment on defamation charges in March 2017. The charges were in connection to a statement Huseynov made in January 2017, describing torture inflicted upon him by police officers after his detention.

Recommendations

  • Fully implement the recommendations of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention following its 2016 country visit, in particular to investigate promptly, thoroughly and impartially all allegations of arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights defenders, journalists, political opponents and religious leaders, and prosecute and punish appropriately those found guilty and provide victims with redress;
  • Immediately and unconditionally release all persons arbitrarily detained for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, and, where applicable, quash their convictions and remove restrictions on their freedom of movement;
  • Drop the criminal charges against all persons for exercising their right to freedom of expression, including Intigam Aliyev, Khadija Ismayilova and Mehman Aliyev;
  • Cease the arbitrary arrest and detentions of individuals for politically motivated reasons;
  • Take immediate measures to combat torture and end the practice of impunity, ensuring that those responsible for acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are held accountable and that victims obtain redress, including for convictions based on forced confessions.

Forced closure and harassment of independent media outlets and journalists
20. During its last UPR, Azerbaijan accepted 14(23)  recommendations related to ensuring respect for media freedom, independent journalism, and media diversity, including to take into account Council of Europe in this regard.(24)

21. The Azerbaijani authorities dominate the country’s media landscape, through regulations, direct ownership or indirect economic control. In the period under review, the majority of independent media outlets have been forced to close or go into exile, with those still operating inside the country subject to police raids, financial pressures, and prosecution of journalists and editors on politically-motivated charges. Where media outlets have been forced to stop print publication and publish only online, their sites are subject to periodic blocking and throttling by the Azerbaijani authorities.

22. Forced closure of media outlets include:

  • In June 2014, leading independent newspaper Zerkalo was forced to stop publishing in print, because government control of advertising and distribution networks made it economically untenable.(25) This was a consequence of government pressure on advertisers, and a ban on selling newspapers in the street or metro drastically reducing sales.
  • In December 2014, the Baku Bureau of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) – Radio Azadliq – was forcibly closed after it was raided and placed under seal by police, supposedly in connection with financial mismanagement.(26) Journalists working for RFE/RL in Azerbaijan continue to be harassed by Azerbaijani officials.(27)
  • In July 2016, ANS TV was abruptly suspended by Azerbaijan’s regulatory authority the National Television and Radio Council (NTRC),  after the station planned an interview with the Turkish opposition figure Fethullah Gülen, under Article 11 of the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting (to avoid propaganda of terrorism via TV or Radio).(28)  The initial suspension was for one month, but in September 2016 the NTRC revoked ANS’ licence(29) and it remains off air.(30)
  • In September 2016, the last independent daily newspaper, Azadliq, stopped publishing following the arrest of its financial director Faiq Amirov, cutting off access to the newspaper’s bank accounts and income. The outlet had been financially throttled for years, as the state-owned distribution network consistently failed to transfer sales proceeds that it owed to the newspaper.
  • In August 2017, the authorities initiated a criminal case against Turan news agency for tax evasion, the last remaining independent media in the country. Its Editor-in-Chief, Mehman Aliyev, was also arrested on similar trumped-up tax evasion charges and its bank accounts have been frozen, forcing it to officially suspend all activities.(31)

23. Meydan TV, an independent online media outlet whose coverage includes human rights abuses and government corruption, closed its Baku office in December 2014 due to safety concerns. It continues to operate from its headquarters in Germany, in cooperation with journalists in Azerbaijan, despite relentless harassment and state-level blocking of the site since May 2017.(32) In August 2015, the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office launched a criminal case in relation to Meydan TV’s activities under Articles 213.2.2 (evasion of taxes in a large amount), 192.2.2 (illegal business) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. In April 2016, 15 individuals were named in the criminal investigation, with Aynur Elgunash, Aytaj Ahmadova, Sevinj Vagifgizi, and Natig Javadli  subject to travel bans.(33) Journalists associated with Meydan TV have been repeatedly summoned for interrogations by the Prosecutor’s Office.(34) The case remains open.

24. Harassment of individual journalists who express critical opinions or deviate from official State accounts in their reporting remains a serious concern. In September 2017, dozens of journalists were dismissed from the government controlled ATV television channel after well-known journalist and TV host. Turan Ibrahimov spoke on a live broadcast about corruption, including how high-ranking officials targeted an entrepreneur to illegally take over his business.(35)

25. Access to foreign media outlets remains restricted, notwithstanding the government’s acceptance of a specific UPR recommendation to expand media freedoms across broadcast platforms, including by ending its ban on foreign broadcasts on FM radio frequencies as well as restrictions on the broadcast of foreign language television programmes.(36) A 2009 ban imposed by NTRC (based on Article 13 of Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Telecommunication), remains in place, preventing foreign entities from accessing national frequencies, which effectively took the BBC, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Voice of America, off the air.(37) The NTRC, established on 5 October 2002 by Presidential Decree (#795), is fully funded from the state budget and the President directly appoints its members. Similarly, the Azerbaijani public service broadcaster, Ictimai, consistently demonstrates clear bias favourable to the government and ruling party, a problem exacerbated by the lack of media pluralism and alternative information sources in the country.

26. Civil society organisations focused on media freedom issues have also been targeted. In August 2014, the office of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS) was raided by the authorities in the capital Baku as part of a broader crackdown on NGOs in Azerbaijan. They confiscated equipment, documents, and assets, and the staff were harassed and interrogated by Azerbaijan’s Public Prosecutor office. As a result, IRFS has been forced to cease its operations in Azerbaijan; its Director, Emin Huseynov, remains in exile since fleeing Azerbaijan in 2014.(38)

Recommendations

  • Support an independent and pluralistic media sector, ensuring that any official State advertising revenue is allocated according to a clear law, with non-discriminatory and equitable criteria, with allocations subject to full and detailed transparency, with guarantees for the editorial independence of media actors;
  • Desist from extra-legal pressure on advertisers that support independent media;
  • Desist from interference with the independence of media outlets, including through the harassment of their staff;
  • Establish through law a truly autonomous and functionally independent public service broadcasting service to promote diversity in broadcasting in the overall public interest with full editorial independence;
  • Replace Presidential Decree #795 which established the NTRC to establish through law a truly independent and adequately funded broadcasting regulatory body, in line with international freedom of expression standards, with clear, transparent and fair policies and procedures, including for the allocation, suspension and revocation of licenses, with the purpose of ensuring media diversity and pluralism in the public interest;
  • Cease the regulatory and judicial harassment of independent media outlets, their editorial staff and journalists, including by dropping criminal charges against Meydan TV and the Turan News Agency, and by restoring the license of ANS TV;
  • Amend Article 13 of Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Telecommunication and lift the ban prohibiting foreign entities from broadcasting on national frequencies, including the BBC, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Voice of America to permit broadcasting by foreign outlets.
  • Permit media outlets to sell their newspapers in the streets, without undue restriction;
  • Ensure redress for the forced closure of IRFS, fully restoring confiscated property and allowing it to resume activities without harassment, including by allowing the return to Azerbaijan of IRFS director Emin Huseynov.

Legislative restrictions to freedom of expression online

27. During its last UPR, Azerbaijan accepted recommendations to protect freedom of expression online.(39) However, various laws have been amended to increase restrictions in the period under review.

28. On 15 November 2016, the Azerbaijani Parliament approved amendments to Articles 148 and 323 of the Criminal Code, creating a new offence of “slander or insult” through “fake user names, profiles or accounts”, as well as increasing penalties for “smearing or humiliating the honour and dignity” of the Azerbaijani president where the offence is committed online.(40) The government has not acted on its 2011 proposal to decriminalize defamation,(41) which currently carries a sentence of up to 3 years in prison. This is in spite of accepting a recommendation at the 2nd UPR cycle to abolish defamation provisions in the criminal code, and to “refrain from initiating defamation lawsuits against civil society activists and journalists”.

29. On 10 March 2017, the Parliament passed new amendments to the laws on “Information, Informatisation and Protection of Information” and “Telecommunications”, extending government control over online media.(42) The amendments establish obligations for website owners or hosts to delete within eight hours, on notice from the authorities, unlawful content.(43) Prohibited content includes any information criminalised under national laws, including broad “extremism” and “defamation” provisions. If the content is not removed, authorities can apply for a court order to block the website, though websites with information considered “a danger for the state or society” can be blocked without a court order, subject to subsequent judicial review.

30. Between March and April 2017, access to a number of online new sites with content critical of the government were blocked in Azerbaijan.(44) Contrary to the provisions in the above laws, neither the hosts or owners of these outlets were informed about the blocks in advance. On 12 May 2017, a Baku Court ruled to impose an official ban on five independent media websites deemed harmful and dangerous for national security. Along with Meydan TV, Azadliq newspaper, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty Azerbaijani Service, Azerbaijan Saati website and video channel, and Turan TV video channel have all been blocked.(45)

31. In September 2017, access to the website of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) was blocked inside Azerbaijan after they published the “Azerbaijan Laundromat” – a series of reports that uncovered high level corruption by Azerbaijani officials and implicated European and other diplomats and politicians.(46)

Recommendations

  • Reform the laws on “Information, Informatisation and Protection of Information” and “Telecommunications” to remove reference to prohibitions on content that do not comply with international human rights law on freedom of expression, and to ensure that websites are only blocked on the basis of an independent court order and are strictly proportionate to the aim pursued;
  • Decriminalise defamation fully, including by reversing the introduction of heightened penalties for online forms of defamation, repealing Articles 148, 148-1, 323.1, and 323.1-1 of the Criminal Code.

Legislative restrictions to freedom of association
32. During its last UPR, the Azerbaijan government accepted numerous specific recommendations to bring its Law on Non-Governmental Organisations into conformity with international human rights law and to create a safe and enabling environment for civil society,(47) but it has not done so.

33. In 2013 and 2014, amendments to the already-onerous 2011 Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) entered into force. These amendments provided the government with broad discretion to dissolve, impose financial penalties on, and freeze the assets of NGOs for infractions of administrative regulations, closing the few remaining loopholes for the operation of unregistered, independent, and foreign organisations.(48) The Venice Commission has found that the amendments “seem to be intrusive enough to constitute a prima facie violation of the right to freedom of association”(49), and their impact since has caused the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to call for their repeal.(50)

34. The 2014 amendments established a de facto licensing regime for NGOs, giving the government broad discretion to arbitrarily refuse or delay the registration of grants, establishing complicated and onerous procedures for registration, and allowed for restrictions on NGOs’ access to their bank accounts for non-compliance. The impact of these new rules has been to severely limit civil society space. While some NGOs have reportedly had their bank accounts unfrozen in April 2016,(51) several organisations no longer have in their possession many of the documents required for grant registration, because Azerbaijani investigative authorities seized them in the course of inspections and criminal investigations.(52) Meanwhile, the accounts of many other human rights organisations and independent NGOs remain frozen, including in July 2014 those of the Legal Education Society and its head, Intigam Aliyev, causing the NGO to cease operations.

35. The 2014 amendments have also made it much harder for foreign entities to provide grants to local NGOs, requiring them to have an agreement with government ministries. As a consequence, throughout 2015, foreign governments that previously provided grants to local NGOs postponed their activities.

36. The Government of Azerbaijan established the Azerbaijani State Council for Support to NGOs in 2007, which aims to provide a domestic source of financial assistance to local NGOs. However, NGOs applying to the Council for grants have reported that they were told to sign a statement promising to refuse to have any relations with international NGOs critical of the Government of Azerbaijan, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, among others. In addition, one NGO receiving funding from the Council has reported that its activities have become subject to constant control by the state donor, undermining its ability to operate independently.

37. On October 21, 2016, President Aliyev signed into law a decree on the Simplification of Registration of Foreign Grants in Azerbaijan, effective from 1 January 2017.(53) The new regulations simplify some procedures for registration of foreign grants, but do not address the legal requirement for NGOs to register grants, and do not eliminate the requirement for the Ministry of Finance to provide an opinion on the expediency of each grant from a foreign donor, and most importantly, they do not change the broad discretion of the authorities to arbitrarily deny grant registration. The Law on Grants and the Law on State Registration and State Register of Legal Entities remains intact.

Recommendations

  • Comprehensively reform all laws limiting the right to freedom of association, in particular the 2011 law on NGOs and the 2013 and 2014 amendments thereto, and bring them in line with international human rights law;

Restrictions to freedom of assembly and protests

38. During the last UPR cycle, Azerbaijan accepted multiple recommendations regarding protection of the right to peaceful assembly.(54) However, the authorities continue to severely restrict protests in public spaces and organisers of peaceful actions have been arbitrarily arrested and detained.

39. Amendments to the Law on Peaceful Assembly in May 2008 stipulate that demonstrations may only held in a number of approved sites, all of which are far from the centre of Baku, thereby diminishing the impact of protest. Further changes to the Law on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, adopted in November 2012 and criticised by UN special procedures, criminalised participants of peaceful gatherings when they “cause significant violation of the rights and legal interests of citizens”.(55) On 14 May 2013, amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences increased the penalties for “organising, holding and attending an unauthorised assembly” to 60 days’ detention, receiving criticism from Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.(56)

40. Police have used unlawful and disproportionate force to disperse protests,(57) and participants in peaceful assemblies have been arbitrarily detained.(58) For example:

  • In April 2014, N!DA youth activists Turgut Gambar, Albulfez Gurbanli and Ilkin Rustemzade were sentenced to 10-15 days administrative imprisonment for participating in an unsanctioned memorial service on the four-year anniversary of a shooting at Azerbaijan’s State Oil Academy, and had their hair forcibly shaven off.
  • On 6 May 2014, more than 25 protesters were arrested during a rally protesting the sentencing of activists at Baku City Grave Crimes Court. The next day, three protesters were sentenced to administrative detention for participating in an unauthorized protest, with the rest receiving fines. One protester, Kemale Beneyarli, sentenced to 30 days’ administrative detention, alleged that she was severely beaten on the head for refusing to sign an incriminating statement before the trial hearing, and there has been no investigation to these allegations.

Recommendations

  • Comprehensively reform the 2008 Law on Peaceful Assembly (as amended) and the 2013 amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences, to bring them into compliance with Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including by removing penalties for “unauthorised assemblies”, and removing blanket prohibitions on assemblies in the centre of Baku, ensuring that any location-based limitations are necessary and proportionate.

Footnotes

1. Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS), The Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety Statement on the Outcomes of the Constitutional Referendum in Azerbaijan, (29 September 2016), available at https://www.irfs.org/news-feed/the-institute-for-reporters-freedom-and-safety-statement-on-the-outcomes-of-the-constitutional-referendum-in-azerbaijan/.
2. Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, Azerbaijan Preliminary Opinion on the draft modifications to the constitution submitted to the referendum of 26th September 2016, (20 September 2016), available at
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2016)010-e p. 5
3. See e.g., amendments to Articles 89, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, and 108 of the Constitution, available at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-REF(2016)054-e.
4. Recommendations of Canada, Italy, Germany, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Slovakia, Norway and Austria.
5. Specifically the recommendations of Canada, the United Kingdom, Slovakia, Norway.
6. Council of Europe’s Media Alert Platform, Meydan TV Director Emin Milli Threatened for Critical Reporting on European Games, (30 June 2015), available at – https://go.coe.int/1y4r2
7. ARTICLE 19, “Prevent – Protect – Prosecute: Acting on UN Human Rights Council Resolution 33/2”, (September 2017), available at: https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38883/Safety-of-Journalists-guide.pdf
8. Recommendations of Austria, Ireland, Slovakia, United States, United Arab Emirates, Czechia, France, Italy, Canada (x2), Sweden, Chile, Norway, Mexico and Germany.
9. Recommendations of Slovenia, Germany, Canada, and Austria.
10. Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its mission to Azerbaijan, A/HRC/36/37/Add.1, 2 August 2017; available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/36/37/Add.1
11. The Working Group on Unified List of Political Prisoners in Azerbaijan, Updated Unified List of Political Prisoners in Azerbaijan, (28 August 2017), available at –
http://smdtaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Political-Prisoners-Report_Azerbaijan-August_2017.pdf
12. All Articles in this section refer to Articles of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan.
13. European Court of Human Rights, Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 15172/13), 22 May 2014
14. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Decision CM/Del/Dec(2017)1294/H46-2, 21 September 2017; available at: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680749f3c
15. Meydan TV, Customs Service Releases Info. on Arrest of Gozel Bayramli, (29 May 2017), available at – https://www.meydan.tv/en/site/politics/23173/
16. Council of Europe’s Media Alert Platform, Azerbaijani Journalist Elchin Ismayilli Sentenced to 9 year in Prison, (18 September 2017), available at – https://go.coe.int/alXEf
17. International Press Institute, Concerns as head of Azerbaijan news agency arrested, (31 August 2017), available at – https://ipi.media/concerns-as-head-of-azerbaijan-news-agency-arrested/
18. The Azerbaijan Free Expression Platform, Imprisoned (2013): Ilkin Rustemzade, (15 June 2016), available at – http://azerbaijanfreexpression.org/ilkin-rustemzade/
19. The Azerbaijan Free Expression Platform, Arrested (2016): Elgiz Gahraman, (18 August 2016), available at – http://azerbaijanfreexpression.org/arrested-2016-elgiz-gahraman/
20. The Azerbaijan Free Expression Platform, Conditionally Released (2016): Intigam Aliyev, (18 August 2016), available at – http://azerbaijanfreexpression.org/imprisoned-2014-intigam-aliyev/
21. Recommendation of Bulgaria.
22. Meydan TV, Youth activist Bayram Mammadov on torture in police custody, (17 May 2016), available at -https://www.meydan.tv/en/site/politics/14510/
23. Recommendations by Canada (x3), Cyprus (x2), Italy, Germany, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Slovakia, Netherlands (x2), Norway and Austria.
24. Specifically recommendations Italy
25. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Deprived of income, Azerbaijani paper is forced to stop publishing, (20 June 2014) available at https://rsf.org/en/news/deprived-income-azerbaijani-paper-forced-stop-publishing
26. RFE/RL – Radio Azadliq, Azadliq Radio Baku Bureau Sealed Shut , (26 December 2014), available at -https://www.azadliq.org/a/26763625.html
27. RFE/RL, RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service: Radio Azadliq, available at – https://pressroom.rferl.org/p/6126.html
28. https://www.irfs.org/news-feed/private-broadcaster-ans-tvs-broadcast-suspended-for-one-month/
29. Council of Europe (CoE)’s PACE, The functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan (provisional report), p.12
30. Chai-khana, Azerbaijan’s ANS: Death of a TV Station, (17 July 2017), available at: https://chai-khana.org/en/azerbaijans-ans-death-of-a-tv-station
31. CoE, Statement on the arrest of Mehman Aliyev in Azerbaijan, (25 August 2017) available at – https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/statement-on-the-arrest-of-mehman-aliyev-in-azerbaijan
32. http://www.eurasianet.org/node/83591
33. Meydan TV, Fifteen journalists named in criminal investigation of Meydan TV, (21 April 2016), available at -https://www.meydan.tv/en/site/news/13829/
34. E.g. https://www.meydan.tv/en/site/news/24362/
35. IRFS, Major Shake-up at ATV, (27 September 2017), available at – https://www.irfs.org/news-feed/major-shake-up-at-atv/
36. As recommended by Canada.
37. RFE/RL, Azerbaijan Bans RFE/RL, Other Foreign Radio From Airwaves, (30 December 2008), available at https://www.rferl.org/a/Azerbaijan_Bans_RFERL_Other_Foreign_Radio/1364986.html
38. The Guardian, Swiss fly out opposition journalist hiding at its Azerbaijan embassy, (14 June 2015), available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/14/swiss-fly-out-opposition-journalist-hiding-at-its-azerbaijan-embassy
39. Recommendations of Czechia and Canada
40. IRFS, Azerbaijani Parliament Approve Bill Restricting Online Speech, (29 November 2016), available at https://www.irfs.org/news-feed/azerbaijani-parliament-approves-bill-restricting-online-speech/.
41. See National Program for Action to Raise Effectiveness of Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in the Republic of Azerbaijan, (27 December 2011), available at http://en.president.az/articles/4017.
42. IRFS, Azerbaijani Government Takes Big Steps to Keep Online Media under Control, as Parliament Adopts Restrictive Law related to Information, (10 March 2017) available at https://www.irfs.org/news-feed/azerbaijani-government-takes-big-steps-to-keep-online-media-under-control-as-parliament-adopts-restrictive-law-related-to-information/.
43. As above.
44. Meydan TV, Blocking of Websites in Azerbaijan Moving Ahead at Full Steam, (17 April 2017) available at – https://www.meydan.tv/en/site/news/22317/
45. Eurasianet.org, Azerbaijan: Court Upholds the Blocking of Independent Media Outlets (15 May 2017), available at – http://www.eurasianet.org/node/83591
46. Meydan TV, OCCRP blocked in Azerbaijan, (5 September 2017) available at – https://www.meydan.tv/en/site/news/24988/
47. Recommendations of Austria, Ireland, Slovakia, United States, Switzerland, Czechia, France, Chile, Norway, Mexico, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Uruguay.
48. US State Department, Country Reports for Human Rights Practices 2015: Azerbaijan, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/253035.pdf p.22
49. Venice Commission Opinion, supra note 3, at para. 91
50. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16393&LangID=E
51. Minval.az, Власти снимают арест на банковские счета ряда НПО, (06 April 2016), available at – http://minval.az/news/123568530
52. US State Department, Country Reports for Human Rights Practices 2015: Azerbaijan, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/253035.pdf p.22; See also: http://www.publishwhatyoupay.org/pwyp-news/azerbaijan-authorities-raid-civil-society-offices-in-continued-crackdown-on-ngos/
53. The International Centre for Non-Profit Law, Civic Freedom Monitor: Azerbaijan, (29 May 2017), available at – http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/azerbaijan.html
54. Recommendations of Slovakia, United States, Germany, France, Uruguay, and Hungary.
55. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/046/29/PDF/G1404629.pdf?OpenElement
56. CoE Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Report following Commissioner Muižnieks visit to Azerbaijan – 22 to 24 May 2013, (6 August 2013), available at – https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2501767&SecMode=1&DocId=2130154&Usage=2
57. Such as the official shown in the photo on the cover of ARTICLE 19’s report ‘Living as Dissidents’, taken during a 14 April 2010 unsanctioned demonstration staged by the Musavat Party. See ARTICLE 19, ‘Azerbaijan: Authorities Clamp Down on Protesters in First Election-Related Demonstration’, 15 April 2010. http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/azerbaijan-authorities-clamp-down-on-protesters-in-first-election-related-de.pdf
58. For example, a flash mob by 5 individuals in support Rasul Jafarov, one of the arrested human rights defenders, on his birthday on 17 August 2014, resulted in arbitrary arrests and police violence.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1507719850906-a6d11292-e9f6-0″ taxonomies=”7145″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

The Truth To Power Cafe

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”82972″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]London Artists Projects and Theatre in the Mill present a work in progress performance in association with Cast and Index On Censorship. The Truth to Power Café begins a unique twelve-month exploration into the power of free speech and political activism as participants of all ages, beliefs, and backgrounds have five minutes to speak truth to power before a live audience by responding to the question: “Who has power over you and what do you want to say to them?”

Speaking truth to power has its origins in anti-war pacifism, but in this era of post-truth and fake news is widely accepted to mean saying something those in authority or position of trust don’t want to hear. Is it to your parents, a sibling, a politician, lover, landlord, neighbour, religious leader, boss, banker or simply your best friend? It’s time to tell them the truth before it’s too late.

To be one of six Bradford participants, please write in a hundred words or less who you are and what you want to say and send to jeremy@londonartistsprojects.co.uk by 25th October. We will contact you by 1st November to discuss your entry.

“The revolutionary potential of theatre at its best and most direct.” Guardian

“The Truth to Power Café tells it like it is. Take part, I did. Or just turn up for inspiration and empowerment.” Peter Tatchell, International Human Rights Activist

“Being part of the Café was a truly empowering experience.” Phoebe Thomas Weekes, student and participant

The Truth to Power Cafe’ is a new theatre work forming part of an international art project inspired by the political and philosophical beliefs of Harold Pinter and his Hackney Gang. For more information visit London Artists Projects.

Devised and hosted by Jeremy Goldstein.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

When: Wednesday 8 November, 7:30pm
Where: Theatre in the Mill, Bradford (map)
Tickets: £3

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Jodie Ginsberg: How censorship stifles debate

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/Gy4ZfnnTOKM”][vc_column_text]A speech given by Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg at St Mary’s Cathedral, Limerick, Ireland for the Limerick Civic Trust in association with Banned Books Week.

In 1634, the English lawyer and author William Prynne was sentenced to life imprisonment, fined £5,000 (more than £1 million in today’s money) and had both his ears cut off. His crime? The publication of Histriomastix – a thousand-page Puritanical tome dedicated to showing that plays were unlawful and incentives to immorality. He didn’t have many good things to say about women either.

It is a dreadful irony that this work, which in effect advocates censorship, resulted in some of the most gruesome punishments you can inflict on an author for their writing. Nor did his punishment end there – accused of publishing”seditious libels” again in 1637, Prynne had the letter SL branded on both his cheeks.

I mention the example of Prynne because it is the first cited in an exhibition of book covers currently on display at Pembroke College, Cambridge, where this week my organisation kicked off a series of talks and discussions for Banned Books Week, of which this lecture is the final event.

And I mention it because while it reminds us of how far we in the UK and Ireland have come in the past 350 years, the exhibition was also a powerful reminder of the fact that censorship is still alive and well – albeit in different forms – in our democracies. The exhibition ran along two sides of the library. On one side were the cases from the 1630s to 1800s. The entire other side reflected instances of censorship in the UK just in the past 100 years. This included – in 1946 – the burning of copies of insipid love story Forever Amber by Kathleen Winsor – not by the state but by public libraries no less.

Stop to think of that for a moment. In 1946, barely a decade after the perhaps some of the most infamous book brings in history – those of Nazi Germany, public libraries in the UK thought it fit and proper to burn a historical romance that one judge in the States described as “soporific rather than aphrodisiac”.

That was 1946. A bygone era perhaps? Sadly not. Sixty-four years later in 2000, a New York-based Limerick man took out a $800 half-page advertisement in Irish-American newspaper, the Irish Echo, inviting people to bring copies of Angela’s Ashes to a book-burning ceremony to protest this way this city was treated in the novel and the film of the same name.

The Angela’s Ashes incident shows us the urge to censor, to limit the publication or promotion of ideas we find offensive – whether on grounds of obscenity, of religion, or politics, remains strong.

This talk will examine the new sources of censorship – not just in the context of literature – and posit some ways we can resist the urge to silence others.

First, a little about myself and why I care about these issues and about the organisation I run. I am a journalist and have wanted to be a journalist for as long as I can remember. As a child, I would make my friends play ‘the news’ which we then performed to our long-suffering parents and I dreamed of being BBC foreign correspondent Kate Adie. When I finally got to cover a war – civil conflict in Ivory Coast – I discovered I did not after all want to become a war correspondent and ended up as London Bureau Chief for Reuters news agency. Whereupon I found myself in charge of coverage for the UK riots of 2011.

I became a journalist because I wanted to tell stories that were not being heard. I love literature because I believe in the power of the written word to convey and transport us to a world beyond our own imagining and that my own world is enriched as a result.

So it seemed a natural fit when I was asked if I was interested in running Index on Censorship, one of the world’s leading organisations in the defence of free expression. Index on Censorship was founded 45 years ago by the poet Stephen Spender in response to what seemed like a simple request: what could the artists and intellectuals of the West do to support their counterparts behind the Iron Curtain and those under the thumb of oppressive regimes elsewhere? Organisations like Amnesty and PEN already existed, doing then – as now – a formidable job of petitioning and campaigning, particularly on the cases of the imprisoned. What more could be done? The answer – those who established Index decided – was to publish the works of these censored writers and artists and stories about them. Index on Censorship magazine was born and we have continued to produce the magazine – this magazine – on at least a quarterly basis ever since. Writers for the magazine have included the likes of Arthur Miller, Nadine Gordimer, Hilary Mantel, Vaclav Havel – and Samuel Beckett.

One of the t-shirts featured in the Index on Censorship archive reads: “If Samuel Beckett had been born in Czechoslovakia we’d still be waiting for Godot”.

It was part of a campaign that Beckett supported to bring attention to the plight of writers in then Czechoslovakia. Beckett’s play was banned in the east European country at the same time as the communist government was persecuting its own writers. Beckett became drawn to the case of Czech playwright Havel, and committed to bringing world attention to the way writers were being banned.

Beckett was so incensed by what was happening to Havel that he wrote the short play Catastrophe, dedicated it to Havel, and allowed Index the exclusive, to publish it first in its pages.

Beckett’s action encapsulates the motivation of those who first established Index. This motivation, as Stephen Spender wrote in the first edition of the magazine, was to act always with concern for those not free, responding to the appeals from Soviet writers to their Western counterparts. “The Russian writers,” Spender wrote, “seem to take it for granted that in spite of the ideological conditioning of the society in which they live, there is nevertheless an international community of scientists, writers and scholars thinking about the same problems and applying to them the same human values. These intellectuals regard certain guarantees of freedom as essential if they are to develop their ideas fruitfully… Freedom, for them, consists primarily of conditions which make exchange of ideas and truthfully recorded experiences possible.”

I will ask in my talk this evening – given the debates about no-platforming in universities, the controversy over kneeling for the US flag, the fact that the BBC’s political correspondent needs a bodyguard to cover a political conference, whether we currently have the ‘conditions which make exchange of ideas possible’.

Why is it important to tackle censorship? Sometimes we forget to ask ourselves this question because we take it for granted that freedom is a good thing. Consider all those who were quick to shout ‘Je Suis Charlie’ following the attacks on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo – the knee-jerk reaction in Western liberal democracies is often to say you are for free speech, without ever really stopping to consider why you might be for it. Or why free speech is and of itself a good thing.

I would argue this failure to understand the value of free speech lies at the heart of one of the dilemmas we face in modern democracies where free speech is being gradually eroded – where ‘Je Suis Charlie’ quickly became ‘Je Suis Charlie, but…’.

It is vital to understand the value inherent in free expression to understand why some of the current tensions surrounding free speech exist. It is also crucial for understanding ways to tackle the dangerous trade-offs that are increasingly being made in which free expression is seen as a right that must be pitted against safety, security, and privacy.

John Stuart Mill talks of free expression being fundamental to the “permanent interests of man as a progressive being.” “The particular evil of silencing the expression of an opinion,” he argues in On Liberty, “is that it is robbing the human race… If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”

This latter argument is particularly powerful when we consider, for example, the introduction of Holocaust denial laws. Such laws suggest that there are some truths so precious that they have to be protected by laws, rather than having their truth reinforced by repeated “collision with error.” You can imagine authoritarian regimes everywhere looking at such laws and rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of being able to impose a single view of history on the populace, without any kind of challenge.

The free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information is in Mill’s doctrine a kind of positive cacophony from which clear sounds emerge. In this doctrine, it is not just the having of ideas, but the expressing of them that becomes vital.

Which brings us back to the question of whether we have the conditions for the exchange of ideas possible in 2017 across the world. I want to focus on four key areas on which Index campaigns for free expression: the arts, academia, media and online, and look at what I consider to be some of the main sources of censorship, by which I mean the attempt to silence and stifle ideas and debate, in democratic countries and further afield.

Let us begin with the arts. A number of recent cases I think highlight the contemporary censorious impulses in democracies: the first is the case of Exhibit B, a theatrical installation meant to highlight the horrors of so-called human zoos of the 19th century. Created by white artist Brett Bailey, Exhibit B was described by London’s Barbican as a “human installation that charts the colonial histories of various European countries during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when scientists formulated pseudo-scientific racial theories that continue to warp perceptions with horrific consequences.” Exhibit B involved black actors often chained or in masks, sitting silently while viewers to the installation filed past.

In 2014, Exhibit B – which received five-star reviews elsewhere and was successfully shown just weeks before at the Edinburgh Festival – was pulled from a planned staging at the Barbican on the advice of police following a sustained campaign against the work online and off, including a very vocal protest outside the theatre.

Those who objected to the artwork – many of whom had not seen it – described it as racist. Now, I am not objecting to people’s right to protest against works or ideas they find offensive. Indeed, that is a fundamental tenet of freedom of expression. But what is salient, I think, about Exhibit B is that it demonstrates a growing belief that the opinions of one set of people should be allowed to infringe the legal rights of others to express themselves. Exhibit B was not closed down by police for hate speech or inciting violence, it was closed down because the police and the venue itself did not believe they could protect the audience or actors from any potential spillover from the protests about the work. In this case, one group of self-appointed spokespeople for a community infringed the rights of others to express themselves. As Stella Odunlami, an actor who took part in the Barbican Exhibit B, wrote in The Guardian: “I chose to take part in Exhibit B because I was inspired by the premise of the work… It forces us to examine the darkest corners of our mind. It is brutal, unforgiving and unapologetic. I decided, as an educated black artist, that it told a story that should be shared with the world, but sadly that will no longer be the case. My freedom of expression was taken the moment the protesters decided to attempt to storm the venue, causing it to be evacuated and deemed unsafe. It was at that moment that the protesters retained their right to free speech and I had mine taken away.”

Offence and hurt are in the eye of the beholder. Once we let a mob decide what can and cannot be expressed, we are in dangerous territory indeed.

We see this mob mentality most often reflected in the hysteria that whips up at speed when an individual or group of individuals takes offence on social media about something and how that fireball of fury can intimidate artists and others to self-censor as result. Irish author Claire Hennessy spoke eloquently about this at an event Index hosted in London last night.

Such campaigns do not just force self-censorship, they can prevent works from getting an audience at all. Consider a young adult novel called The Black Witch about a girl named Elloren who has been raised in a stratified society where other races (including selkies, fae, wolfmen, etc.) are considered inferior at best and enemies at worst. When she goes off to college, she begins to question her beliefs. The book was subjected to a sustained campaign of online abuse ahead of publication after one blogger wrote that the fantasy novel was “the most dangerous, offensive book I have ever read.” Its Goodreads rating dropped to an abysmal 1.71 thanks to a mass coordinated campaign of one-star reviews, mostly from people who admitted to not having read it.

Nervousness about offence is not restricted to concerns about the reaction it might generate in the online world. Salman Rushdie has said he does not think the Satanic Verses would be published today. And in the wake of the killing of those associated with Charlie Hebdo, the killings at the Bataclan nightclub in Paris, the shooting at a free speech event in Copenhagen it is not difficult to see why.

This mob as censor dynamic is something we shall see rearing its head again when we come to talk about media and academia and is one of the pincer movements I identify at being at the heart of modern censorship in democracies.

The second pincer movement is led primarily by governments and relates to a privileging of national security over almost all other values in modern societies. The crackdowns justified in the name of national security are widespread and increasingly misused. Take, for example, the current situation in Turkey. It is not just journalists who face the ire of President Erdogan as he seeks to weed out his enemies. Artists face his wrath too. Cartoonist Musa Kart, for example, has been in detention for the past 10 months and faces 29 years in jail for his cartoons satirising the government.

Jailing is one way to silence your enemies. Another is travel bans. In Malaysia, another cartoonist, Zunar, is currently subject to a travel ban – and faces 43 years in jail for his work satirising the Prime Minister and his wife.

In these democracies, those in power behave increasingly like despots. And one thing autocrats seem to hate more than anything is being laughed at. if you don’t believe me, consider the fact that President Erdogan tried to have the German government prosecute a German comedian for reciting – on German television – a poem that lampooned him. Even worse, German Chancellor Angela Merkel paved the way for his possible prosecution of Jan Böhmermann by leaving it up to prosecutors to decide whether to take the case forward.

If free speech cannot be defended by Germany within its own borders, what hope is there for its global defence?

I want to say something here about the importance of a robust defence of fundamental, universal rights and freedoms within democracies as standard bearers for these rights globally. Autocratic and repressive regimes look to justify their own behaviour by pointing to comparable actions in democracies.

That is why we at Index welcome the fact that Ireland’s blasphemy law will be considered in the upcoming referendum. Ireland is the only country in the western developed world to have introduced a blasphemy law in the 21st century and that has given succour to those countries who wield their own blasphemy laws to punish apostates.

For instance, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – which has 57 member states – cites Ireland’s law as best practice and has even proposed adopting its precise wording to limit human rights on freedom of conscience. It gives strength to the likes of OIC member Pakistan where a woman – Asia Bibi – is currently in jail awaiting execution for having drunk the same water as her Muslim neighbours.

Freedom to express one’s religious belief is on the barometer of the state of free expression.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Stay up to date on freedom of expression” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join the our mailing list and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A second important indicator by which freedom of expression can be measured is the state of its media. And on this measure, the picture is also far from rosy. Index has been running a project since 2014 on threats to media freedom in Europe and neighbouring countries. The picture that the Mapping Media Freedom project paints is alarming. Journalists in our region have been killed, arrested and systematically harassed for doing their jobs. And the harassment isn’t taking place only in countries where you might expect it: Turkey, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, but much closer to home.

Only this week, we learned the BBC’s political correspondent has been assigned a bodyguard because of threats against her. Think about that for a moment. One of the most senior journalists at Britain’s public broadcaster requires a security detail to cover the conference of the country’s leading opposition party.

Online harassment, intimidation by the state, and legal measures are all ways in which attempts to silence the media are made. In some countries, the stakes for journalists are impossibly high. In Mexico, more than eight journalists have been killed this year alone as the cartels, vigilante groups and security forces wrestle for power. Few of these killings are ever solved, encouraging an atmosphere of impunity. In Turkey, hundreds of journalists are in jail. And at the far end of the spectrum, countries like Eritrea have no independent media whatsoever. In between are countries like Ireland, which a report in 2016 by human rights lawyers Doughty Street Chambers found had one of the most concentrated media markets of any democracy. The report said accumulation of what has been described as “communicative power” within the news markets was at endemic levels, and this, combined with the dominance of one private individual media owner in the State, created “conditions in which wealthy individuals and organisations can amass huge political and economic power and distort the media landscape to suit their interests and personal views.

And in discrediting and dismissing all journalism he doesn’t like as “fake news”, the President of the United States creates an environment in which attacks on journalists feel like fair game. Everywhere.

The President’s preferred communications milieu is, of course, social media and the internet is currently the battleground for some of the most important debates on free speech in the 21st century.

On the one hand, the internet offers an incredible tool for democratising speech: a relatively cheap platform that allows anyone with the access the means to make their voice heard. However, it also provides a tool for the nasty, cruel – and often just frankly the bored – to harass and bully others into silence. That is a challenge that we as free speech advocates would be wrong to ignore but for which censorship is the wrong answer.

Nor is the answer effectively abolishing privacy on the internet. This is the particularly pervasive argument used in Western liberal democracies to justify surveillance in the name of national security. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, the mantra goes: in liberal democracies, we’re not interested in your ideas, we’re just out to get the bad guys committing crimes. It shouldn’t stop you expressing yourself.

Except that it does. Knowledge of mass surveillance by governments is already changing the way in which writers work. A report from PEN American Center, Global Chilling, shows an astonishing one-third of writers – 34 percent – living in countries deemed “free” have avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic, or have seriously considered it, due to fear of government surveillance. Some 42 percent of writers in “free countries” have curtailed or avoided activities on social media, or seriously considered it, due to fear of government surveillance, the survey found. In countries that are not free, the consequence of a lack of privacy is acute. Colleagues in Azerbaijan, for example, note that authorities are quick to demonstrate the country’s openness by arguing a lack of curbs on social media. They don’t need a curb – as soon as you express yourself openly, the crackdown begins.

But it is not just in countries like Azerbaijan that we have to worry about surveillance or the misuse of national security laws. In 2014, British police used legislation introduced explicitly to tackle terrorism to obtain the phone records of The Sun newspaper’s Tom Newton Dunn for an investigation into whether one of its officers had leaked information about a political scandal, an action that seriously comprising the basic tenet of a free and independent media: the confidentiality of sources.

Even the hardware being used to quash free expression in authoritarian regimes comes from supposed democracies. Journalist Iona Craig, a regular reporter from Yemen, describes the phone tapping and other surveillance methods – using hardware and software bought from the West – that put her and her sources at risk. She and her colleagues now resort to traditional methods of reporting – meeting contacts in person, using pen and paper, to evade surveillance.

Privacy, then, is the natural corollary of freedom of expression. It allows reporters to protect their sources in pursuit of truth and advocacy organisations like ours to protect those whom governments seek to silence. But privacy rights should not trump freedom of expression in such a way that they prevent us coming closer to the truth.

It is for this reason that Index on Censorship opposed the so-called ‘Right to be Forgotten’ ruling that allows ‘private’ individuals the ability to remove links to information they considered irrelevant or outmoded. In theory, this sounds appealing. Which one of us would not want to massage the way in which we are represented to the outside world? Certainly, anyone who has had malicious smears spread about them in false articles, or embarrassing pictures posted of their teenage exploits, or even criminals whose convictions are spent and have the legal right to rehabilitation. In practice, though, the ruling is far too blunt, far too broad brush, and gives far too much power to the search engines.

This handing off of responsibility to internet companies to police and censor content is something we need to be far more alive to.

Increasingly, the protection of the individual, using notions of harm defined by the individual themselves – is used as an argument for censorship. I want to use the remainder of my talk to discuss ways in which this drive to shield from potential and perceived harm, is having an impact, with a particular focus on academia.

It is clear that something is going wrong at universities. Institutions that should be crucibles for new thinking, at the forefront of challenges to established thought and practice, are instead actively shutting down debate, and shying away from intellectual confrontation.

Driven by the notion that students should not be exposed to ideas they find – or might find – offensive or troubling, student groups and authorities are increasingly squeezing out free speech – by banning controversial speakers, denying individuals or groups platforms to speak, and eliminating the possibility of “accidental” exposure to new ideas through devices such as trigger warnings.

In recent years a number of invited speakers have withdrawn from university engagements – or had their invitations rescinded – following protests from students and faculty members. Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice withdrew from a planned address at Rutgers University in New Jersey after opposition from those who cited her involvement in the Iraq war and the Bush administration’s torture of terrorism suspects; Brandeis University in Massachusetts cancelled plans to award an honorary degree to Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali; and Christine Lagarde backed out of a speech at Smith College following objections by students over the acts of the International Monetary Fund, which Lagarde runs. In the UK, the University of East London banned an Islamic preacher for his views on homosexuality.

Registering your objection to something or someone is one thing. Indeed, the ability to do that is fundamental to free expression. Actively seeking to prevent that person from speaking or being heard is quite another. As I alluded to earlier, it is a trend increasingly visible in social media – and its appearance within universities is deeply troubling.

It is seen not just in the way invited speakers are treated, but it stretches to the academic fraternity itself. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign withdrew a job offer to academic Steven Salaita following critical posts he made on Twitter about Israel.

In an open letter, Phyllis Wise, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign chancellor, wrote: “A pre-eminent university must always be a home for difficult discussions and for the teaching of diverse ideas… What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them. We have a particular duty to our students to ensure that they live in a community of scholarship that challenges their assumptions about the world but that also respects their rights as individuals.”

These incidents matter because, as education lecturer Joanna Williams wrote in The Telegraph newspaper: “If academic freedom is to be in anyway meaningful it must be about far more than the liberty to be surrounded by an inoffensive and bland consensus. Suppressing rather than confronting controversial arguments prevents criticality and the advance of knowledge, surely the antithesis of what a university should be about?”

Yet, increasingly, universities seem to want to shut down controversy, sheltering behind the dangerous notion that protecting people from anything but the blandest and least contentious ideas is the means to keep them “safe”, rather than encouraging students to have a wide base of knowledge. In the US, some universities are considering advising students that they don’t have to read material they may find upsetting, and if they don’t their course mark would not suffer. The introduction of “trigger warnings” at a number of universities is a serious cause for concern.

In the UK, increasing intolerance for free expression is manifest in the “no platform” movement – which no longer targets speakers or groups that incite violence against others, but a whole host of individuals and organisations that other groups simply find distasteful, or in some way disqualified from speaking on other grounds.

The decision to cancel an abortion debate at Oxford in late 2014, which would have been held between two men – and noted free speech advocates – came after a slew of objections, including a statement from the students’ union that decried the organisers for having the temerity to invite people without uteruses to discuss the issue. More recently, a human rights campaigner was barred from speaking at Warwick University – a decision that was subsequently overturned – after organisers were told she was “highly inflammatory and could incite hatred” and a feminist was banned from speaking at the University of Manchester because her presence was deemed to violate the student union’s “safe space” policy.

Encountering views that make us feel uncomfortable, that challenge our worldview are fundamental to a free society. Universities are places where that encounter should be encouraged and celebrated. They should not be places where ideas are wrapped in cotton wool, where academic freedom comes to mean having a single kind of approved thinking, or where only certain “approved” individuals are allowed to speak on a given topic.

Index on Censorship knows well the importance of the scholar in freedom of expression. Though we have come to be known as Index, the charity itself is officially called Writers and Scholars Educational Trust, an effort to capture as simply as possible the individuals whom we intended to support from the outset. The title was never intended to be exclusive, but the inclusion of “scholar” signals the importance our founders attached to the role of the academic as a defender and promoter of free speech. In 2017, as we watch the spaces for free expression narrow, I hope that together we can work doubly hard to ensure that traditional bastions for free speech — and indeed institutions like the church in which we stand that were not always its greatest advocates — remain arena for the clash of ideas, not the closure of minds.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1508139239119-b59a9835-c70f-3″ taxonomies=”6323″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

#BannedBooksWeek: Controversial speaker coming to campus?

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stE7NMlu9TA”][vc_column_text]Over the past few years, the news has been replete with stories about how authors, thought-leaders and others have become disinvited or pressured to withdraw from university speaking engagements because they don’t promote prevailing ideology. What are the consequences of disallowing diverse viewpoints on campus and what can speakers, faculty and librarians do to support intellectual freedom in academia?

Join the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, SAGE Publishing and Index on Censorship for a webinar on speaker disinvitation during Banned Books Week. It will include perspectives from Mark Osler, a professor who was disinvited from a campus speaking engagement, Glenn Geher, a professor of psychology who helped to bring a controversial speaker to campus, and Judith C. Russell, a dean of libraries who addresses issues relating to controversial speakers, academic freedom and campus safety on campus.

The event will be chaired by Jemimah Steinfeld, deputy editor of Index on Censorship magazine. This event is part of #BannedBooksWeek[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”95736″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]

Judith C. Russell

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”95735″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]

Glenn Geher

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”95734″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]

Mark Osler

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”88892″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]

Jemimah Steinfeld

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Society of Editors: Fighting for real news

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”95931″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Fighting for real news will top the agenda at the Society of Editors annual conference in Cambridge on 12-13 November.

The agenda will focus on fighting fake news and the value of legitimate news sources, police and media relationships and counter-terrorism, freedom of expression worldwide and ideas and innovations.

Ronan Harris, Managing Director of Google in the UK and Ireland, will deliver the prestigious Society of Editors Lecture on Sunday evening.

Confirmed speakers for the main day of conference sessions on Monday:

  • Jodie Ginsberg, CEO, Index on Censorship
  • Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick
  • Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley
  • Chris Evans, Editor of The Telegraph
  • Amol Rajan, Media Editor at the BBC
  • Orit Kopel, Co-founder and VP of Business Development at Wikitribune
  • Aine Kerr, Manager of Journalism Partnerships at Facebook
  • Jackie Ashley, journalist and broadcaster
  • Simon Jenkins, former editor of the London Evening Standard
  • Will Moy, director of fact-checking organisation Full Fact

A full list of speakers is available here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Mehmet Altan: The law or law of the enemy?

Mehmet AltanMehmet Altan is an academic economist, journalist, and author of over 25 books. Altan, who is in detention, stands accused of “attempting to overthrow the government” and “attempting to eradicate the parliament” and they face three counts of life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Altan, who testified on 19 September through the judicial teleconferencing system from Silivri Prison, mainly addressed the court. The next hearing in his case will take place on 13 November.

Honourable Judges,

The fact that I was arrested on the basis of a charge that is not described in the Turkish Criminal Code – i.e., is not a crime – and that such a legal scandal was then supported by a Criminal Judgeship of Peace, demonstrate from the outset that my imprisonment for over a year has nothing to do with the law.

My imprisonment pending trial on 22 September 2016 — after 12 days in police custody — based on a sentence in an unfounded, untrue news report published as part of an effort to manipulate
public opinion, and the fact that the Criminal Judge of Peace took that same sentence and made it a ground for ordering my pre-trial detention solidified, confirmed and documented this scandalous
process.

And the indictment that finally came out after eight months of imprisonment is a shameful document, which is, contrary to the clear and explicit decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals’ Assembly of Criminal Chamber, based on “presumption” and built on an unattested, one-sentence claim.

It was not just the fact that the court accepted this indictment that surprised me. It was also the interim ruling of the court issued after I presented my four-hour defence statement at the first hearing, and numerous sloppily written, rubber stamp decisions of the Criminal Judgeships of Peace that are against the Criminal Procedure Law, which have been handed down as a result of reviews of the case to order the continuation of my imprisonment and subsequent similar decisions.

Even though I have personally witnessed and seen that the law is nowhere to be found, I still wish, as if the law still exists, to underline once again a few points involving violations, which are too grave to be acceptable from the viewpoint of the law and of which I was a victim.

I am on trial facing three aggravated life sentences on the charges of attempting to overthrow the government, the constitutional order and Parliament over three sentences written in the indictment in bold capital letters that I uttered during a television program airing every Thursday in which we used to discuss and comment on the major developments of the week as
journalists and political commentators, as part of our freedom of expression. Unbelievable. But unfortunately, this is the case.

The long and poorly constructed sentence at the end of page 189 of the indictment constitutes the basis for the illogical and unlawful narrative of this whole accusation. Looking closely at this sentence, one can instantly see how the law is slaughtered.

I would like to emphasize the following before moving to that sentence: There were three topics for discussion on the television program that aired on 14 July 2016. The first was Meral Akşener’s attempt to convene a congress of the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and its likely effects on politics and parliamentary dynamics in the run-up to the 2019 elections; the second one was Law No. 6722 on changes on the Turkish Armed Forces Personnel Law and Some Other Laws that had just been published in the Official Gazette; and, the third topic was Ahmet Altan’s newly published novel on the Committee of Union and Progress era, “Dying is Easier than Loving.”

The law that was published in the Official Gazette that morning gave the military powers that were once provided in the abolished Protocol on Cooperation for Security and Public Order (EMASYA). Discussions during the program focused on the risks that would result from moving away from the constitutional order by creating “fait accompli” situations, within the context of the three said topics.

What is more, the 2019 elections are repeatedly emphasized during discussions in the program. Anyone who takes a look at page 187 of the indictment can and does easily see this.

Again, on page 185, there is this quote: “If 50 AKP deputies say, ‘we are joining Meral Akşener in creating a new political party…’” Where is the “coup” here? What coup?

But the prosecutor reaches unlawful and untrue conclusions from that program that would baffle any jurist, or, honestly, anyone with a decent ability to reason. To be more precise, he thinks he reaches those conclusions. As far as the law is concerned, this is a document that will
go down in history as scandalous.

This is the beginning of that fabulous sentence: “… the coup attempt that they knew about …”

How do we know about the coup? There is no proof, no evidence provided.

In addition, is it a crime to know about a coup attempt? It is not.

The very recent decision of the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, handed down in a 15 July coup case, answers this question.

With the Supreme Court’s conclusion stated in the decision with register number 2017/1443 and judgment number 2017/4758 that: “Knowledge that an act is to be committed has no bearing on participation… The doctrine endorses the same view. The subject’s knowledge about the act is not sufficient to conclude presence of the will to participate. At the most,
offences in relation to liability stemming from not reporting what he/she knows or participation in preparatory acts may transpire,” the poor, unsubstantiated, feeble indictment has entirely collapsed.

Because the starting point of the indictment is that, based on discussions during the television program, we knew about the coup beforehand. According to the prosecutor, if we say there could be a coup, then we must have jointly participated in the coup attempt with the putschists. Because how else can we say there might be a coup?

So, an academic for 40 years, a writer and a journalist who has been writing about the coups since 1990 cannot anticipate or foresee that there would be severe consequences for abandoning the law, right? Assuming that decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals 16th Criminal Chamber is also ignored, just like the law has been, why is [columnist] Fuat Uğur, who insistently wrote way before the coup attempt on 2 April 2016 that a coup was to take place, not subject to any investigation, if it is a crime to know about the coup beforehand?

Why does the prosecutor not prove that “we knew about the coup,” by offering concrete evidence or documents? He cannot, because it does not exist. The claim that we were talking about the coming coup attempt is nothing but a big lie, an effort to create a false public perception about us.

The falsehood that “they knew about the coup” is a flawed, invalid, shaky ground on which the prosecutor attempts to build the whole narrative and unlawfulness of the indictment.

Can people be oppressed and their lives be messed around with by throwing around presumptive guesses, lying, making up accusations? Of course not.

The Supreme Court of Appeals’ Assembly of Criminal Chamber decision dated 19 April 1993 states that “reaching a conclusion on the basis of assumptions, estimates is certainly against the purpose of criminal procedure.”

Is the case law of the supreme courts binding on the judicial system or not?

I wish to believe that it is.

The prosecutor’s opinionated sentences continue: “That there is a system of political and societal chaos which allegedly constituted the reason for the act of the perpetrators who participated through use of violence…”

Let’s stop here for a minute. The opposite is stated in discussions during the program. The discussions are out there for everyone to see and hear. It is stated persistently and repeatedly that creating “fait accompli” situations and departures from fundamental principles of the rule of law, as in the case of EMASYA, would disrupt the legitimate order and the
politicians are warned along these lines.

Let me cite the following remarks I made during the program so as to prove my point more clearly: “…believing that you will take over a state by committing a crime with a mentality not abiding by the law… If that state is going to continue to exist, then this is recklessness… Because when you want to take over the state, you want to destroy a metabolism. And that metabolism has its own [defensive] reflex… You cannot destroy these. If you do, then the state and society would be destroyed in the process, too.”

How can such an empathic rejection of both military and civilian putschism be seen as putschism?

It is very difficult, even in circumstances where there is a strong malicious intent and even for people who are not bound by the law, to make such a claim.

I would like to ask you, too, Honourable Panel, isn’t that so? And I get to the last part of that long, incomprehensible sentence: “… it has been understood that they are principal perpetrators of the acts of rebellion committed with the aim of creating such an atmosphere in line with goals of the organization, that they participated through speech and propaganda, which are the precursor and an inseparable part of the term “use of force” that is the sub-element of the element of the movement.”

Excuse me, but I’d like to say “well, well, well.”

Getting to putschism involving “use of force” from “exercise of freedom of expression” during a television program could be quite challenging even for skilful and talented magicians. And yet, it comes true in our indictment.

But I would like to continue this sad comedy from the legal perspective. The only way to victimize people with disliked opinions and critical views as “terrorism suspects” is this art of magic. Because the prosecutor concludes this unsubstantiated, unlawful and strange scenario with a demand for my punishment under articles 309, 311 and 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK).

And what are these articles about?

Attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, Parliament, and the government “by the use of force and violence.”

Yes, “by the use of force and violence.” The law clearly and undisputedly requires the condition of the use of force and violence, leaving no room for any interpretation or legal maneuvering.

Is that all?

It also requires an “attempt” having been made.

Being charged with offences stipulated in articles 309, 311 and 312 requires “the use of force and violence” and “making an attempt.” The law does not talk about television programs.

Where is the use of force?

Where is the use of violence?

Where is the attempt?

Isn’t this an extremely exaggerated, extremely unlawful and even extremely ill-considered situation?

What is more, the term “threat” that existed in the earlier version of the articles 309, 311 and 312 was replaced with “violence” in 2007 “in order to emphasize more clearly that the exercise of constitutionally protected rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly cannot be deemed to be acts in violation of the Constitution and to remove any doubts that could arise in that regard.”

The proposal for the amendment was tabled by then Justice Minister Cemil Çiçek, while it was enacted by across-the-board support from the AKP and the CHP.

And the part in quotations is from the justification of the proposed amendment. Then how is it that I have been unbelievably deprived of my liberty for over a year?

The indictment in a case involving the raid by putschists on the Istanbul Greater Municipality, use of weapons and people being martyred has also been accepted by your court. Don’t you think it is odd that armed putschists standing trial in a case involving the murdering of people — those who “take lives” — and I are accused of the same crime?

That “the use of force and violence” is an element of the crime of putschism is stated once again in the very recent decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals’ 16th Criminal Chamber, in addition to the already very clear articles of the TCK.

Isn’t the meaning sufficiently clear when the decision states, “It is obvious that what is meant by the use of force as required by the law is [the use of] physical/material force”?

Isn’t this clear enough when it says, “In terms of the referenced law, the term immaterial force is a legacy of Fascism, and, in terms of the Turkish Criminal Justice, it is a legacy of the Supreme Council of Justice, which was established in the aftermath of the 27 May 1960 coup for the purpose of putting those who were in power on trial and was looking for excuses to try members of the legitimate political government”?

Isn’t the following conclusion clear enough? “In this respect, protection of the state’s existence from dangers and physical hostile movements is required by a necessity and the element of the government, which gives the state its state qualities, constitutes the most important portion of this protection. But in democracies, this protection never allows punishment of opinions.”

As a person who was made a putschist over two columns and a television speech and whose liberty has been seized for more than a year, I would like to ask the panel of judges trying me; I know you will object, but it’s my right to ask:

Are the laws and the case law of supreme courts, which set out a oadmap for 15 July coup offences, binding or not?

If they are, then you have to give my freedom back to me at once. The decision is up to you, esteemed panel. The decision will be yours. The elements of “hierarchical loyalty and a chain of command within an organizational structure” are lacking, and no one can even claim
they exist. There is no evidence, but there is a fantastical assumption, a fictitious narrative, and the coup charges.

Besides, it is also beyond comprehension that, while all these legal facts are out there, I am being associated under Article 314/2 of the TCK with a terrorist organization which seeks to establish a theocratic state, with which I have no “unity in terms of actions and opinions,” and of which I am not a member, based on my televised comments.

While it is evident that the “element of continuity” is lacking, and this is stated even in the indictment, how can TCK articles 220/6 and 314 and, from there, 309, 311 and 312 be applied? Is this legally possible? I would have wished that these were acknowledged and fixed during the process by which the court accepted the indictment or by the esteemed prosecutor at the courtroom during the first hearing.

But the interim ruling dated June 23 and the monthly reviews of detention have produced the opposite of what I had expected.

Wouldn’t it be more fair to examine whether or not “aggravated life sentence,” which requires the presence of “the use of force and violence” and “physical attempt,” can be sought for three short sentences that have been uttered during a television program and do not constitute a crime, instead of the cliché excuses that we now have memorized, such as: “The quality and nature of the attributed offences”

“That the offences attributed to the suspects are deemed to be the ground for incarceration…”

“That the crimes attributed are among the catalogue crimes stipulated in Article 100/3-a.11…”

“That the lower and upper limits of punishment envisaged by the law for the crime attributed to the suspects raise the suspicion that they might
flee…”?

Provided that the law does exist, isn’t it too risky that a person is deprived of his or her liberty with such ease, while all the laws are out there and the views of legal authorities and justifications for the laws are that clear?

Besides, who will be responsible for unpleasant, irremediable consequences, say, about health, that could arise after a summer spent in prison since 23 June?

Will it be those members of the judiciary who levelled charges of perpetrating a coup by “using force and violence” out of comments made during a television program and those who remained silent in the face of it?

Will it be those who destroy the law by spreading fear?

Who?

Esteemed panel, I would also like to briefly touch upon two points that have been persistently stated in the interim ruling and in decisions
handed down after regular reviews of the case file. One of them is the claim that “tangible evidence indicating strong suspicion that the crime has been committed” exists. The second one is “suspicion that the suspects might flee.”

Esteemed judges,

At first, I, as a person who was imprisoned and now faces three aggravated life sentences because of a few sentences uttered during a television program, got very curious about what those pieces of “tangible evidence” might be when I saw the phrase, which has been written on identical documents and is responsible for my continued incarceration for over a year and for which no legal explanation has been offered, on the Court’s interim ruling and the subsequent decisions issued after regular monthly reviews.

Still, I would like to respond to, and, in the meantime, briefly recall and refute once again, the “allegations,” which are presented as “evidence”
in the indictment and none of which constitutes a crime.

The 247-page indictment devotes two pages to me, one of which consists of an article of mine.

The lie included in Nurettin Veren’s statement dated 24 October 2016 and cited on page 215 of the indictment that I had “frequent” contacts with Fethullah Gülen via Alaeddin Kaya is refuted a few pages back, to be more precise, three pages back, on page 212, by the prosecutor himself.
That I met with Alaeddin Kaya only once, on 28 September 2008, is indicated on a diagram included in the indictment. This tangible evidence also shows how reliable the witness, Nurettin Veren, is.

Besides, Alaeddin Kaya states that at that time he was the owner of Star daily newspaper, of which I was then the chief columnist, and 24 TV. The claim about the six one-dollar bills found in my home similarly becomes meaningless within the same sentence that lays out the claim.

The indictment emphasized that five one-dollar bills were found in the drawer of the desk in my study together with other foreign bills that I
used during my travels.

There is a vain effort to attribute significance to a torn, out-of-circulation one-dollar bill of F-series, forgotten from past travels in a worn-out
women’s wallet inside a wardrobe in the hallway, as you can also see here today. But this is what this indictment is about anyway.

The bill was not kept in a separate, special place; it is obvious that it is nothing but old, torn and phased-out leftover currency, like the other foreign changes found in my room.

In addition, this effort to incriminate me and to create misperceptions is also debunked in previous pages of the indictment itself.

First, why and for what purpose would I keep the F-series one-dollar bill, given that I am not a member of the organization? What would its meaning be?

Honestly, shouldn’t an indictment be more serious?

Secondly, keeping a one-dollar bill had become more dangerous that keeping a murder weapon in the aftermath of the 15 July coup attempt. Why would I keep my one-dollar bills if I had anything to hide? I have explained these at length in my defence statement.

In fact, looking at the indictment’s own assessments, the inclusion of this one-dollar bill claim as if it has a significance looks pointless as well. Because, according to the indictment’s own account, F-series one-dollar bills are handed to FETÖ member students.

So, isn’t it an exercise in futility to talk of a torn one-dollar bill leftover from an old trip as evidence despite this assessment?

The most unpleasant thing about being wronged is having to respond to irrelevant, meaningless, insignificant accusations that do not constitute a crime.

I will file a complaint over this one-dollar bill. This torn, out-of-circulation banknote leftover from a past trip has been disclosed to the media in violation of the principle of the confidentiality of investigation.

In addition, a video record of it was made with a police officer covering the rip by placing his finger on it.

I would like to file a complaint on this matter.

Is the purpose to find the truth, to manipulate public perceptions about those who hold critical views, or to hurt the reputation of people by disseminating dubious news about them?

Esteemed Court,

A third allegation concerns the fact that I was not subject to any criminal investigation even though I gave a conference at AKABE Education and Cultural Centre.

Have you seen an accusation like this before?

But I still would like to expose its senselessness by responding to it, just like all the other irrational, senseless and unlawful allegations. I have learnt that the AKABE Foundation had a rivalry, if not outright hostility, with the Gülen Movement thanks to this “allegation” in the indictment.

Therefore, the fact that I gave the said conference there is enough on its own to prove that I am an autonomous, independent intellectual. But I will not make do with this. The judges who oversaw the Quds Army Terrorist Organization case are the same judges who authorized the unlawful tapping of my phone. I sued them and this is all in the file. I then saw that they were put on trial on FETÖ charges.

The fourth allegation stems from an article that I wrote seven years ago, entitled “The Meaning of Sledgehammer.” The article emphasizes the significance of democracy and the rule of law. It has never been subject to any criminal investigation.

Besides, the Sledgehammer case is still ongoing. The indictment itself states this.

Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım talks about the Sledgehammer case at every opportunity as well. I am ready to send the prime minister’s most recent statement on this matter to the prosecutor who drafted the indictment.

A fifth matter concerns another article that I wrote on 20 July 2016. I have explained in my defence statement how the article was validated in many respects. And, again, there has been no criminal investigation into this article either.

That opinions, views and articles are being used to prop up criminal charges and presented as terrorism activities is saddening for Turkey.

It also demonstrates the true nature of the current period.

Oppressing intellectuals and presenting these people as terrorists and putschists in order to destroy freedom of expression and freedom of thought are shameful endeavours that will benefit no one.

Lastly, Historical Traffic Search (HTS) records have been used to support the accusations in the indictment.

Throughout the nine-year period between 26 July 2006 and 16 December 2015, records of phone communication with nine people selected out of thousands of conversations are presented as evidence of crime, disregarding the constitutional right to communicate.

Despite this, I would like to respond to this allegation, too, and show once again how hollow the indictment with which I have been deprived of my liberty is.

I would like to state that I twice texted one of these nine people (Halit Esender) in 2009, that I called another one (Muhammet Günay) once in 2010, and that I called a third one (Ali Bayram) three times in the years 2010 and 2012.

A fourth person (Hidayet Karaca) called me twice in 2009. The fifth one (Önder Aytaç) sent texts to notify me about the articles he wrote. When he stopped writing, he stopped texting as well after 2008.

The sixth (Alaeddin Kaya) called twice, in 2008 and 2009. The seventh (Cemal Uşak) called seven times in nine years. The date of the last recorded call is November 2013.

There are more calls and texts with the eighth and ninth people (Harun Tokalı and Mustafa Yeşil).

The last incoming call recorded took place in 28 January 2014. From then on, there has been no record of phone communication.

How can the prosecutor who drafted the indictment allege presence of “links with the putschists” based on legal phone conversations the most recent of which was made 2.5 years before the 15 July 2016 coup attempt? How can the courts take such illogical accounts seriously and how can I be in jail for over a year thanks to these incongruities?

Let me add this, too: All of these people were media executives working for legitimate institutions operating under legal supervision of the State of the Republic of Turkey. In addition, they were not subject to any criminal investigation during this period of infrequent phone contacts; on the contrary, they were quite respected, especially in government circles.

I would like to ask: is this the “tangible evidence” deemed to be the grounds for keeping me in prison?

Esteemed Court,

Finally, there is the following phrase included almost at will in every official document issued since I was first arrested by the police and used by the Court as well in its interim ruling and reviews of the case file: “That the lower and upper limits of punishment envisaged by the law for the crime attributed to the suspects raise the suspicion that they might flee.”

It seems the only reason for levelling unsubstantiated coup charges based on remarks made during a routine television program on political developments of the week, demanding aggravated life sentences under articles 309, 311 and 312 and invoking Article 220/6 is to keep us in prison, citing the risk we might flee given the “definition of the crime”.

Otherwise, how can an indictment which demonstrates no “continuity,” no “unity of opinion and action”, no “hierarchical loyalty”, no “chain of command within an organizational structure”, and which makes no attempt to substantiate its claims of the presence of these elements, level such charges?

Repeated references to “flight risk” as if there were a serious legal account, evidence and proof, and even though we are faced with an indictment that is legally scandalous, might be understandable as a part of the whole process that is transpiring; but aren’t they too incomprehensible for a serious trial?

Besides, as I have stated in my first defence statement, my arrest, pre-trial detention and imprisonment for more than a year now have happened after signals from non-judicial circles.

For instance, that I would be arrested was first reported on a Twitter account called “Başkentçi” on 17 July 2016.

I have never been involved in an illegitimate endeavour throughout my life. I would not even lift a finger, let alone flee.

As a victim of this process, I, too, have had my share of this unlawfulness because I am defending democracy.

I demand that the Court take action — file a complaint, at least — in order to expose the extra-judicial intervention targeting me and to find the people behind it by identifying the user of Başkentçi account and this report.

The same demand applies for the false story aimed at manipulating public perception that was published in Sabah daily newspaper on 23 August and alleged that we “talked about the coup attempt”.

This unfounded report, and the will behind it that wants to punish us, are still out there.

What is more, the Criminal Judge of Peace has ordered my imprisonment pending trial on the basis of a sentence in that report. The magnitude of the scandal that we went through becomes clearer as time passes.

Honourable Judges,

Lastly, I would like to remind you that many defendants facing charges similar to mine are being tried without being imprisoned, while some others have been released awaiting trial.

Do we, then, have an arbitrary situation?

If the purpose is to oppress, this is outside the law and there is nothing I would say.

But I still want to keep my faith in courts, the judiciary and the judicial bureaucracy.

I want to believe that they are fair, impartial, independent, objective and that they stand by the law.

The rest is up to those who sign decisions.


Warning: Attempt to read property "term_id" on null in /home/jwkxumhx/public_html/newsite02may/wp-content/plugins/divi-overlays/divi-overlays.php on line 2979

Warning: Attempt to read property "url" on bool in /home/jwkxumhx/public_html/newsite02may/wp-content/plugins/divi-overlays/divi-overlays.php on line 2990