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
Free speech organizations including the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) have begun to speak out in defense of Simon & Schuster after a book deal the publisher’s Threshold Editions imprint made with controversial Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos spurred widespread backlash, including calls to boycott S&S and to not review S&S titles. Read the full article
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]As organisations dedicated to protecting freedom of expression, we write to comment on the calls for a boycott against Simon & Schuster because Threshold Editions, one of its imprints, has contracted to publish a book by Milo Yiannopoulos, a provocateur and self-described “supervillain,” whose views and statements are highly controversial and deeply offensive to many.
Calls for boycotts have become a familiar response to the publication of controversial books. Typically, such online campaigns go viral at lightning speed, instantly igniting a firestorm of criticism. We are aware of at least seven other similar situations involving threats or fears of boycotts, four of which were successful in having books withdrawn, delayed, revised, or not reprinted.
In the present case, the calls for a boycott stem not from the content of a book, which has not been published, but because of previous statements by the author which critics characterize as hate speech. The Chicago Review of Books has announced its intent to protest the publisher’s decision by refusing to review any books published by Simon & Schuster, even though that would deprive its readers of information about books from more than two dozen Simon & Schuster imprints, including Salaam Reads, which focuses on books with Muslim characters.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” align=”right”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”The suppression of noxious ideas does not defeat them; only vigorous disagreement can counter toxic speech effectively” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This kind of response will have a chilling effect on authors and publishers, which is undoubtedly the goal of those who support such boycotts. However, the suppression of noxious ideas does not defeat them; only vigorous disagreement can counter toxic speech effectively. Shutting down the conversation may temporarily silence disfavored views, but does nothing to prevent them from spreading and resurfacing in other ways.
Readers are of course free to criticize any book for any reason. They are likewise free to choose not to read any book that they think contains objectionable material, or to urge a boycott. Because other readers may disagree, however, publishers and writers need the freedom to express and disseminate ideas, even if they are controversial and offensive to some. We need not endorse the ideas contained in a book to endorse the right to express them.
That is the essence of freedom and democracy. As the Supreme Court observed 90 years ago:
Freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; … without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; … with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine.
Endorsed by:
American Booksellers Association
Association of American Publishers
Authors Guild
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
Index on Censorship
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Council of Teachers of English
January 5, 2017[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
On 7 January 2015, two gunmen entered the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo and murdered 12 people, including most of the senior editorial staff. The attack was in reprisal for the satirical magazine’s publishing of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.
In defiance of this affront to free speech, the front cover of the “survivor’s edition” of Charlie Hebdo – which sold 3 million copies in 25 countries – depicted Mohammed crying and holding a Je Suis Charlie placard with the headline: Tout est pardonné (All is forgiven).
Two years on from the attack, we have compiled a reading list of articles published by Index on Censorship about Charlie Hebdo, including not just the 2015 attack but the 2011 firebombing of the publication’s previous office on the day a “sharia” edition was to hit news stands.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”28598″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
On the anniversary of the brutal attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo Index joined others in reaffirming our commitment to the defence of the right to freedom of expression.
Index on Censorship, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, freeDimensional, Pen America, FreeWord, Reporters Without Borders, Article 19 and English PEN called on all those who believe in the fundamental right to freedom of expression to join in publishing the cartoons or covers of Charlie Hebdo on 8 January 2015. We believe that only through solidarity – in showing that we truly defend all those who exercise their right to speak freely – can we defeat those who would use violence to silence free speech.
You can’t kill an idea by killing people. The sickening attack on Charlie Hebdo has shown that to be true. As France mourns her dead, millions around the world are discovering the work of her bravest satirists. Nous sommes Charlie.
Cartoonists were among the most visual in their reaction to the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Musa Kart and Xavier Bonilla, who have both been targeted by their governments, shared their thoughts.
The decision by six authors to withdraw from a Pen American Centre gala in which Charlie Hebdo was honoured with an award once again emphasised the dangerous notion that some forms of free expression are more worthy than others.
When the Charlie Hebdo killings happened in Paris in early 2015, attention swivelled to the way that terror and accusation are being used to try and stifle debate. But these are discussions that are not only being held in France, so I asked writers around the world to write short essays exploring the ways that journalists and artists have been threatened over the years, for exploring themes that others would rather they had not tackled.
The office of French satirical Magazine Charlie Hebdo was firebombed as a result of its decision to publish a front cover satirising Mohammed. Here, Sara Yasin and Myriam Francois-Cerrah discuss the background and motivations behind the attack, and ask why some Muslims feel entitled to answer offence with violence.
The smoke had barely cleared from the burned-out office of Charlie Hebdo magazine back in 2011 when Time magazine’s Bruce Crumley chose to criticise the satirists over the terrorists. James Kirchick denounces this all-too-familiar tendency.
In the months following the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo, a graphic novel exploring challenges to press freedom across Europe and the impact of limitations on journalists was released by the European Youth Press.
The Times journalist who uncovered the Rotherham child abuse scandal has said under Section 40 it would be “inconceivable” that the paper would have run its front-page story naming one of the abusers. Read the full article
Nabeel Rajab, BCHR – winner of Bindmans Award for Advocacy at the Index Freedom of Expression Awards 2012 with then-chair of the Index on Censorship board of trustees Jonathan Dimbleby
Index award-winning human rights activist Nabeel Rajab’s pre-trial detention was renewed for a further 15 days by Bahrain’s Public Prosecution on 5 January according to Nabeel’s lawyer.
Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, is being prosecuted on multiple charges related to his media activities, was supposed to be freed on bail following a decision by the high criminal court on 28 December 2016.
However, he was instead immediately re-arrested and remanded in custody for seven days, on charges related to media interviews he gave in 2015. Rajab has been in police custody since 13 June, when he was arrested for “spreading false news and rumours about the internal situation in Bahrain.”
Since his arrest, prosecutors have instead pursued Rajab with three charges which amount to a total of 15 years in prison if convicted, all relating to his twitter activity. Two of these charges -“spreading rumours in wartime” and “insulting a statutory body” – were originally brought against Rajab in 2015 and relate to his criticism of the humanitarian cost of the war in Yemen and his documentation of torture in Bahrain’s Central Jau Prison, but no prosecution occurred at the time. A third charge of “insulting a neighbouring country” – Saudi Arabia – was added to the case following his June 2016 arrest, and also related to his comments on the Yemen war. Rajab’s next trial date for this case is 23 January.
Rajab also faces separate charges in relation to a letter he wrote to the New York Times in September 2016, and may face additional charges for a December 2016 opinion piece in the French Le Monde.
Rajab has been in pre-trial detention since his arrest in June. His detention, much of it in solitary confinement, has caused a deterioration in his health.
The other charges against Rajab are in relation to remarks he tweeted and retweeted on Twitter in 2015 about the humanitarian crisis caused by the Saudi-led war in Yemen and documenting torture in Bahrain’s Jau prison. In all, he stands accused of spreading false information, “criticising” the government and “insulting” Saudi Arabia.
A tweet by Index, which Rajab shared, is also to be used as evidence against him. It reads:
He was first expected to be sentenced in October 2016, but the court has now postponed hearings for a sixth time, raising doubts about the reliability of evidence against him. His next trial date is 23 January 2017.
The US has called for Rajab’s release “full stop”, and the EU’s top human rights official yesterday expressed his “hope” for Rajab’s release. In September, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used his opening statement at the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council to warn Bahrain: “The past decade has demonstrated repeatedly and with punishing clarity exactly how disastrous the outcomes can be when a Government attempts to smash the voices of its people, instead of serving them.”
On Tuesday 14 December, 23 MPs penned a joint letter to the Foreign Secretary calling on the UK government to demand the “unconditional release” of Nabeel Rajab from prison, and for the charges against him to be dropped. The letter signed by a cross-party group of MPs urges the UK to follow the lead of the US, the European Parliament, and the UN in calling for Bahrain to release Rajab.
On the same day, Index joined the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy at a protest outside Downing Street and delivered a letter to UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The letter stated: “There is nothing bold in silence over clear human rights violations, and we urge you to now make a public call for Nabeel Rajab’s immediate and unconditional release.”
On 23 December, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement calling for Rajab’s release. His spokesperson stated: “Criticising the Government should not be the grounds for detention or prosecution and we call on the Bahraini authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Mr Rajab.”
Rajab is the winner of a 2012 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, in part for his work speaking out against human rights violations committed by the Bahrain’s government following a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests on 14 February 2011.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1483696015757-3c65d400-8784-7″ taxonomies=”3368″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
For years Index of Censorship has monitored state interference in news reporting, from the authoritarian Chile in 1970s to North Korea today. With a history of scrutinising government pressure on media, we were never going to join Impress, the new state-approved UK press regulator.
There should always be a clear distance between any government and journalists that report on it. Again and again Index has reported how governments have set up bodies that stop the media covering stories they don’t like.
In Zimbabwe, the 2002 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act requires all journalists and media companies to register. Unlicensed journalists can face criminal charges and a sentence of up to two years in prison.
Last year the Turkish government has forced the closure of news outlets including Zaman and the Cihan News Agency. As our Mapping Media Freedom project has reported, dozens of journalists have been arrested. In Syria we have seen a systematic stifling of reporting.
Meanwhile in the UK, the Government is considering triggering Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which will ratchet up pressure to self-censor. This repressive legislation would pressurise newspapers to avoid the controversial and not publish things others would rather were not heard.
If such laws were introduced in another country, British politicians would be speaking out against such shocking media censorship. There’s no doubt that authoritarian powers will use this example to bolster their own cases in imposing media regulation.
As the leading media lawyer Mark Stephens has pointed out, this could mean that if a Somalian warlord sued a British publisher for something stated in an entirely truthful report, the publisher could still be ordered to pay the warlord’s costs when he lost the case for defamation. Section 40 has been on the statute book for three years but was not triggered because there was no approved regulator of which publishers could be part.
That changed when Impress, a regulator to which so far only tiny local media publishers have signed up, was approved in October.
Having an approved regulator means Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could now be brought into force and that we and many other small publishers could face crippling costs in any dispute, threatening investigative journalism or those who challenge the powerful or the wealthy.
Newspapers and magazines need to be able to tackle controversial subjects, and hold the powerful to account, whether they choose to join Impress or not. In every issue, Index covers stories of corruption, of threats to writers or journalists and physical violence against people telling the truth. If threats of massive, unreasonable legal costs hang over newspapers and magazines then investigative journalism will be further squeezed.
Local daily newspaper editors are horrified by Section 40 and what it may to do to news gathering. Michael Sassi, editor of the Nottingham Post, warned: “Our future could be seriously compromised if either the proposed Section 40 were to become law or we were forced to submit to a government-sponsored regulator. Section 40 could encourage an avalanche of complaints because of the profoundly unfair clause that would force us to pay complainants’ costs – win or lose.”
As George Orwell said: “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” At times like this the Government must be even more vigilant about standing up for freedom of expression. If it fails to do so, it will undoubtedly be held up by other nations as an example they can follow.
Culture Secretary Karen Bradley is consulting on whether this chilling law should be activated. She told MPs last month that a number of editors of local newspapers were concerned that the exemplary damages section could put out them of business and certainly “would impact on their ability to do investigative journalism”.
That is an understatement. Section 40 is a direct threat to press freedom in the UK and must be scrapped.
Rachael Jolley is the editor of the Index on Censorship magazine
This article originally appeared in The Telegraph on 3 January 2017[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1484058713590-29d066e3-327e-3″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Nabeel Rajab, the prominent human rights activist who has been held in prison since June 13 2016, was due to be released on bail by order of a Bahraini court. However, he remains in Jau prison.
After the court ruling on 28 December, the public prosecution issued an order that continued Rajab’s detention for seven days, citing further investigation into another case in which he is accused of “spreading false news,” likely to be related to letters published in the New York Times and most recently in Le Monde newspapers. His seventh hearing is set for 23 January 2017.
The letter saw fresh charges brought against him for “undermining the prestige of the state”. In it he wrote: “No one has been properly held to account for systematic abuses that have affected thousands.” The Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, of which Rajab is the president, estimates that there are around 4,000 political prisoners in the country. Rajab also asked in his letter: “Is this the kind of ally America wants? The kind that punishes its people for thinking, that prevents its citizens from exercising their basic rights?”
Melody Patry, senior advocacy officer, Index on Censorship said: “The refusal to release Nabeel Rajab shows the lengths that the Bahraini government will go to to silence dissent. Nabeel‘s so-called crime was to express an opinion, something that cannot be taken for granted. Bahrain’s repeated postponement of Nabeel‘s trial is emblematic of its wider approach to the human rights of its citizens. His continuing detention is unjust, cruel and disproportionate. We call on Bahrain to honour its international commitments to freedom of expression by releasing Nabeel.”
Rajab has been in pre-trial detention since his arrest in June. His detention, much of it in solitary confinement, has caused a deterioration in his health.
The other charges against Rajab are in relation to remarks he tweeted and retweeted on Twitter in 2015 about the humanitarian crisis caused by the Saudi-led war in Yemen and documenting torture in Bahrain’s Jau prison. In all, he stands accused of spreading false information, “criticising” the government and “insulting” Saudi Arabia.
A tweet by Index, which Rajab shared, is also to be used as evidence against him. It reads:
He was first expected to be sentenced in October 2016, but the court has now postponed hearings for a sixth time, raising doubts about the reliability of evidence against him. His next trial date is 23 January 2017.
The US has called for Rajab’s release “full stop”, and the EU’s top human rights official yesterday expressed his “hope” for Rajab’s release. In September, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used his opening statement at the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council to warn Bahrain: “The past decade has demonstrated repeatedly and with punishing clarity exactly how disastrous the outcomes can be when a Government attempts to smash the voices of its people, instead of serving them.”
On Tuesday 14 December, 23 MPs penned a joint letter to the Foreign Secretary calling on the UK government to demand the “unconditional release” of Nabeel Rajab from prison, and for the charges against him to be dropped. The letter signed by a cross-party group of MPs urges the UK to follow the lead of the US, the European Parliament, and the UN in calling for Bahrain to release Rajab.
On the same day, Index joined the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy at a protest outside Downing Street and delivered a letter to UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The letter stated: “There is nothing bold in silence over clear human rights violations, and we urge you to now make a public call for Nabeel Rajab’s immediate and unconditional release.”
On 23 December, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement calling for Rajab’s release. His spokesperson stated: “Criticising the Government should not be the grounds for detention or prosecution and we call on the Bahraini authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Mr Rajab.”
Rajab is the winner of a 2012 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, in part for his work speaking out against human rights violations committed by the Bahrain’s government following a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests on 14 February 2011.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1483455246683-4d7c79b4-1d31-0″ taxonomies=”3368″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
The Sejm of the Republic of Poland, the lower house of the Polish parliament.
Poland’s ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) has had a lot to celebrate in recent months. Just three days after the country’s 98th Independence Day, PiS celebrated one year in office on 14 November. The party, which has a majority in the Sejm, has had a largely free hand in making the “good changes” it had promised in its infamous electoral slogan.
These changes have included making the Polish constitutional court “submissive”, dismissing hundreds of journalists from the newly patriotic national – but no longer public – media, introducing limitations to the right to assembly and extending the state’s power of surveillance.
Far from incorporating these and other recommendations of Poland’s highest court into the surveillance reform, PiS allowed for all broadband lines to be tapped into directly without judicial oversight or the possibility for internet service providers to request more details as to the reasons for such activities.
Wojciech Klicki from the Polish anti-surveillance foundation Fundacja Panoptykon which is run by lawyer activists, told Mapping Media Freedom that the “most important issue has always been the lack of an institution that would check whether intelligence services are acting in accordance with the law” and that was only made worse through the surveillance act.
The anti-terrorism act which came into effect in late June enables unchecked surveillance of foreign nationals once the ABW — Poland’s internal security agency — establishes their possible ties to terrorism. It also allows for websites to be blocked for five days without prior judicial consent and up to 30 days thereafter, should they be deemed to disseminate terrorist content.
Klicki said: “This has enormous implications for media freedom. Fundamentally, the laws do not offer a precise delineation as to what constitutes a ‘connection to an event of terrorist character’. Such a connection may be an article reporting on an event. And the definition is very broad, not only including obvious events like a bomb attack but other common crimes, which were committed with the aim to direct public authorities towards a certain decision, for example through bribery.”
Klicki noted that a five-day ban of a website can mean its demise in times of fast data, as such an incident is likely to result in a withdrawal of advertisers.
As part of its campaign against the law, Fundacja Panoptykon set up a petition and took part in a public consultation specifically for NGOs and activists with the governmental human rights representative Adam Bodnar. Indeed, Polish authorities are hard-pressed to justify the severity of the law due to the country’s very low terrorist threat – in April, the British Foreign Office, stressed the danger of driving a car in Poland while emphasising the terrorist threat there was negligible compared to the European average. Aside from a “tiny tweak of the definition for the ‘event of terrorist character’” as Klicki noted, the law was enacted within two months of its announcement in late April, and ratified by the president, Andrzej Duda, on 22 June.
Of course, journalists can’t be immune from surveillance by their own country or foreign secret services and Polish journalists have had their fair share of encounters with their domestic Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA). The Gazeta Wyborcza journalist Bogdan Wróblewski won a case against the Bureau in 2013 which consequently had to apologise to him for tapping his telecommunication billings. The CBA’s reason for its ambitious investigation, it emerged during the trial, was to uncover Wróblewski’s and several other regime-critical journalists’ sources. The events took place under the former PiS government term.
Klicki assesses that the recent anti-terrorism laws only exacerbate the problem, especially for foreign journalists. Due to the changes, “journalists can have huge trouble to manage to adhere to their professional confidentiality in Poland”. Asked how Polish journalists make sure they are able to protect their sources, Klicki says they were “now becoming aware of how necessary it is to increase their know-how in the realm of secure communication”, by attending workshops on anonymity, which are offered by his foundation. There is also more information on secure communication online specifically for fixers.
The human rights representative Bodnar submitted the anti-terrorism law to the constitutional tribunal. However, the tribunal has effectively lost its status as an institution of checks and balances though the numerous legislative changes over the past year. Former judge of the tribunal, Andrzej Zoll, commented: “This is the end of a democratic rule of law.”
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Syrian citizen journalist HAZZA AL-ADNAN writes in the summer 2016 Index on Censorship magazine on the realities of reporting in a country where a pseudonym and bulletproof vest offer little protection from constant danger” 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]
Aleppo: Somehow destroyed buildings and massacres become part of the daily view and even marks to guide people to places. (Photo: Zaina Erhaim)
“THE PSEUDONYM HELPS me to feel safe,” said Ali, a citizen journalist who works under a false name in Syria’s government-held regions. “I always pretend to be completely loyal to Bashar al-Assad’s regime while at the same time I am documenting the abuses perpetrated by his government against the activists and civilians.” Because of fear, many of the journalists inside Syria work under pseudonyms, especially in the government-held areas and those controlled by IS.
Despite the dangers of working as a journalist in Syria, there are still many who strive to report the truth, while trying to minimise the risks to themselves as much as possible. They receive some support and training from Western institutions, from time to time. But most work with local or Middle Eastern media agencies.
“If your aim is to report the truth, you cannot work in areas under government control, because it doesn’t want the truth to come out. You can work in the opposition-controlled areas, but you have to keep hidden from the government forces’ aircraft, and the Russian aircraft, and the IS organisation’s intelligence apparatus,” said Mounaf Abd Almajeed, 26, who works for Fresh Radio, a radio station in Idlib, northwest Syria.
“The government accuses us of terrorism, and the majority of the armed opposition factions do not look upon us favourably, because they confuse intelligence work with journalism,” Abd Almajeed added. “We always have to convince these factions that we are journalists, and not agents of the intelligence organisations of the US or Saudi Arabia or Qatar and so on.”
Some armed opposition factions are extreme Islamists, some of them are moderate Islamists and some of them belong to civilian or secular groups, and there is a state of cold – and sometimes hot – war among them. Abd Almajeed thinks that even if a journalist can gain the trust of a particular faction, the battle is not yet won, because he must now convince the other factions that he has not picked a side or become an agent.
Abd Almajeed tries to minimise the risks of the work by wearing a helmet and bullet-proof jacket when going to areas where clashes are taking place. He rarely works at night for fear of being kidnapped, and he doesn’t ever go to areas held by IS or the government. He believes these precautions have helped him to avoid many injuries, especially around seven months ago, when he was covering one of the battles between government and opposition forces around Aleppo, in northern Syria. When the trench that he was hiding in was targeted in an air raid, which he believes was conducted by Russian aircraft, four journalists were killed, but Mounaf was only slightly injured.
Abd Almajeed believes that Western media NGOs could do more to help by offering the required support to journalists inside opposition areas, but rather have confined their support to Syrian press organisations outside the country.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”However much we try to minimise the risks; hardly a week goes by without our losing a friend or colleague” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:left|color:%23dd3333″ google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic” css_animation=”fadeIn”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
But Ahmed Jalal, 35, editor of the local magazine Al-Manatarah, does not agree. He thinks that the diminished support is due to concern for the safety of their employees, and Syrians working with them, after the country became so dangerous for journalists.
As for the burden of responsibility laid on the journalists inside Syria, Jalal said: “In the early stages of the revolution we did not have a great responsibility to convey the truth to the international community because the door was open to journalists from all over the world, and many of them came in and reported the truth to their communities. But after a year or two of the revolution everything changed because Bashar al-Assad succeeded in getting his propaganda message across to the West that he was fighting terrorists and that the alternative to him was chaos and terrorism.”
Jalal believes that IS’s pursuit of journalists, and execution of some of them, forced Western agencies to withdraw their correspondents, and then the opposition factions’ media made repeated mistakes until the world began to view the Syrian conflict as a “sectarian war between the Alawites and the Shi’a on the one hand and the Sunnis on the other, or as a fundamentalist Islamic revolution that crossed borders, and not a people’s revolution”.
Jalal sighed, took a drag on his cigarette, and continued: “Our responsibility has become great, it is now up to us to convince the international community that we are reporting the truth, which can be expressed as the aspirations for freedom and justice of a people that a criminal regime is killing – and this is what compels us to risk our lives.”
Working under a pseudonym and wearing bullet-proof jackets is all journalists inside Syria can do to minimise the risks, according to Jalal, because nobody recognises the immunity of journalists, and nobody respects the international laws and conventions governing their work. He said: “We are in a jungle … all we can do is persevere, coping with the fear and the grief. However much we try to minimise the risks; hardly a week goes by without our losing a friend or colleague, who has died covering some battle or other, or in the bombing of civilians by government forces or their allies, or in an execution by Da’esh [IS].”
The editor said: “Hardly a day goes by without our seeing the dead body of a child torn apart by Bashar al-Assad’s aircraft.” In the opposition-held areas, ordinary citizens do not look upon journalists favourably.
Jalal added: “Every time we go to take a photograph we encounter people who refuse and say ‘You media people take photos and rake in the money and we get bombed by Bashar al-Assad’s planes because of you taking pictures.’”
Many journalists inside Syria want their output to reach the international community. “Unfortunately, it rarely gets through because most of the journalists in these areas do not possess English or the skills to communicate with the outside world, so when talking to the world they rely on compassion rather than understanding,” said Jalal.
Jalal wishes the armed opposition factions would invite Western media organisations into their areas and provide them with protection. And if that is impossible, then he asks “powerful news agencies like Reuters, Agence France-Presse and the Associated Press, and powerful networks like the BBC and CNN” to put trust in local journalists or citizen journalists in these areas.
Ahmed said: “We have now got good journalists inside the opposition-held areas who have received training from Western institutions such as the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and Reporters Without Borders and the CFI [run by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs], and we now have training centres in these areas; all that we lack is the trust of the powerful Western agencies and the networks in us.”
The writer of this piece, Hazza al-Adnan, was introduced to Index on Censorship by our 2016 Freedom of Expression Award winner Zaina Erhaim.
Erhaim won the journalism award for using her own skills to train other Syrians to be able to tell their stories too.
Erhaim told Index: “Hazza attended the first training I did in Idlib suburb. He is a lawyer and had no experience in journalism at all. After the training, he started publishing on our website [the Institute of War and Peace’s Damascus Bureau], and when their local radio station Fresh was established, he started working as an editor with them. He writes for many Syrian websites and has passed the training I gave to him to more than 30 others.”
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]This article appeared in the summer 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine. [/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/10.1177/0306422014535688″][vc_custom_heading text=”Syria tracker: Syria’s inside track” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422014535688|||”][vc_column_text]June 2014
Report on an ambitious project to chart and verify countrywide citizen reports, social media updates and news articles.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89073″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422013511563″][vc_custom_heading text=”Rise of Turkish citizens’ media” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422013511563|||”][vc_column_text]December 2013
Turkey’s mainstream media bias made the public turn to a new type of media outlet for their news.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80562″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422014548623″][vc_custom_heading text=”Holed up in Harare, Zimbabwe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422014548623|||”][vc_column_text]September 2014
Natasha Joseph talks to journalists who walk the line of reporting in Zimbabwe, which is dangerous business.[/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=”Danger in truth: truth in danger” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2F2016%2F05%2Fdanger-in-truth-truth-in-danger%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The summer 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at why journalists around the world face increasing threats.
In the issue: articles by journalists Lindsey Hilsum and Jean-Paul Marthoz plus Stephen Grey. Special report on dangerous journalism, China’s most famous political cartoonist and the late Henning Mankell on colonialism in Africa.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”76282″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/2016/05/danger-in-truth-truth-in-danger/”][/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.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has for the past four decades published the work of censored writers and artists. Now we face the possibility of censorship thanks to a UK government law that means — as a publisher that refuses to sign up to a regulator approved by a state-created body — we could end up paying both sides in a legal dispute even if we ultimately win the case. The law, Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, as it stands is a danger to a free press.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner content_placement=”top”][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act is a direct threat to press freedom in the UK and must be scrapped.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]This part of the act, created as a response to the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking, has been on the statute for three years but was not enacted because — until earlier this year — there was no approved regulator of which publishers could be part. That changed when Impress, a regulator to which so far only small local media publishers have signed up, was approved in October by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP). The PRP was established through an arcane state mechanism called a Royal Charter following the Leveson Inquiry. Having an approved regulator means Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could now be brought into force and that we and many other small publishers could face crippling costs in any dispute, threatening investigative journalism or those who challenge the powerful or the wealthy.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act is a direct threat to press freedom in the UK and must be scrapped. The government is currently consulting the public on section 40.
Index has warned consistently of the dangers from the Crime and Courts Act.
1. Under s.40, or the “cost provisions”, in relevant media-related court cases, newspapers which are members of a recognised self-regulator are exempt from paying their opponents’ legal costs, even if they lost a case. The presumption would also mean that newspapers outside a recognised self-regulator must pay their own and their opponents’ legal costs, even if they win a case. The s.40 incentive is based on the fact that recognised self-regulators have to have a low cost arbitration scheme that replaces the need for court action.
2. Please provide the evidence that supports your view (max 250 words)
As a small, independent magazine publisher that is a “relevant publisher” of news-related material as per the definition provided in section 41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and that is not subject to any of the exemptions listed in Schedule 15, Index on Censorship faces the prospect of having to pay the costs for both sides if a claim is brought against us – even in a case we are ultimately successful in winning. This could potentially bankrupt the organisation, effectively silencing a magazine that has for the past 44 years dedicated its existence to the publishing of work by, and information about, censored writers and artists worldwide.
3. To what extent will full commencement incentivise publishers to join a recognised self-regulator? Please use evidence in your answer. (max 250 words)
Index on Censorship will not sign up to a regulator that has to be approved by a state-appointed body. Freedom of the press – including total freedom from any state involvement in regulation of the press – is the bedrock of a free and democratic society. Section 40 stands in direct opposition to this principle. Introducing punitive statutory penalties is not an incentive – it is a threat. Forcing publishers to join a recognised regulator or face the threat of punitive costs makes a mockery of the notion that the self-regulator is in any way voluntary.
We urge everyone to write to their MP and to Secretary of State Karen Bradley requesting its immediate repeal or to respond to the online consultation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Press Regulation” category_id=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Turkey Uncensored is an Index on Censorship project to publish a series of articles from censored Turkish writers, artists and translators.
[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Linguist and newspaper columnist SEVAN NIŞANYAN has found himself locked up for 16 years after being subjected to a torrent of lawsuits. Researcher JOHN BUTLER managed to interview him for the winter 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
Well-known linguist Sevan Nişanyan will not be eligible for parole in Turkey until 2024. Locked up in the overcrowded Turkish prison system, he has found his initial relatively short jail sentence for blasphemy getting ever longer as he has been subjected to a torrent of “spurious” lawsuits on minor building infringements related to a mathematics village he founded.
Nişanyan, who is 60, spoke exclusively to Index on Censorship. He said he was being kept in appalling conditions. Moved from prison to prison since being jailed in January 2014, he is now being held in Menemen Prison, a “massively overcrowded and brain- dead institution”.
He added: “About two thirds of our inmates were recently moved elsewhere and the remainder pushed ever more tightly into overpopulated wards to make room for the thousands arrested in the aftermath of the coup attempt.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1481550218789{padding-bottom: 40px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”Nişanyan is adamant that his time has not been wasted. He has been working on the third edition of his Etymological Dictionary of the Turkish Language, which presently stands at over 1500 pages“” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:24|text_align:justify|color:%23dd3333″ google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic” css_animation=”fadeIn”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text el_class=”magazine-article”]
Nişanyan’s ordeal started in 2012 when he wrote a blog post about free speech arguing for the right to criticise the Prophet Mohammed. Through notes passed out of his high security prison via his lawyer, Nişanyan told Index what he believes happened next:
“Mr Erdoğan, the then-prime minister, believes in micromanaging the country. He was evidently incensed.
“I received a call from his office inquiring whether I stood by my, erm, ‘bold views’ and letting me know that there was much commotion ‘up here’ about the essay. The director of religious affairs, the top Islamic official of the land, emerged from a meeting with Erdoğan to denounce me as a ‘madman’ and ‘mentally deranged’ for insulting ‘our dearly beloved prophet’.
“A top dog of the governing party, who later became justice minister, went on air to assure us that throughout history, no ‘filthy attempt to besmirch the name of our holy prophet’ has ever been left unpunished. Groups of so- called ‘concerned citizens’ brought complaints of blasphemy against me in almost every one of our 81 provinces. Several indictments were made, and eventually I was convicted for a year and three months for ‘injuring the religious sensibilities of the public’.”
But what happened afterwards was even more sinister. He found himself, while in prison, facing eleven lawsuits relating to a village he was building with the mathematician and philanthropist Ali Nesin. Nişanyan has been involved for many years in a project to reconstruct in traditional style the village of Şirince, near Ephesus, on Turkey’s Western seaboard. It is now a heritage site and popular tourist destination. And nearby, he and Nesin have built a mathematics village which offers courses to mathematicians from all over Turkey and operates as a retreat for maths departments in other countries. They hope it will be the beginnings of a “free” university.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1481549931165{padding-bottom: 40px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”Jailing a non-Muslim, an Armenian at that, for speaking rather mildly against Islamic sensibilities… would be a first in the history of the Republic“” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:24|text_align:justify|color:%23dd3333″ google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic” css_animation=”fadeIn”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
It was this project the Turkish authorities decided to focus on. Nişanyan was given two years for building a one-room cottage in his garden without the correct licence, then two additional years for the same cottage. Nine more convictions for infringements of the building code followed, taking his total term up to 16 years and 7 months.
He, and many others, are convinced that this is a political case, because jail time for building code infringements is almost unheard of in Turkey. He believes the authorities have prosecuted him for these crimes because they do not want his case to cause an international stir.
“Jailing a non-Muslim, an Armenian at that, for speaking rather mildly against Islamic sensibilities… would be a first in the history of the Republic,” he told Index. “It might raise eye- brows both here and abroad.”
Despite everything, Nişanyan is adamant that his time has not been wasted. He has been working on the third edition of his Etymological Dictionary of the Turkish Language, which presently stands at over 1500 pages.
On entering prison, he signed away most of his property, including the copyright to his books, to the Nesin Foundation which runs the mathematics village he is so passionate about. Today the village has added a school of theatre. A philosophy village is the next project in the works.
“The idea is, of course, to develop all this into a sort of free and independent university,” he said. “I am sure the young people who have come together in Şirince for this quirky little utopia will have the energy and determination to go on in my absence.”
[/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=”90772″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229908536530″][vc_custom_heading text=”Slapps and chills” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064229908536530|||”][vc_column_text]January 1999
Julian Petley’s roundup looks at the bullying of broadcasters and asks: are they being SLAPPed around?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89167″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422010388687″][vc_custom_heading text=”Survival in prison” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422010388687|||”][vc_column_text]December 2010
Detained writers suffer from violence, humiliation and loneliness – writing is their only solace.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”93991″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228408533768″][vc_custom_heading text=”Writers on trial” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228408533768|||”][vc_column_text]October 1984
The trial outcome is uncertain, but it could mean putting Turkey’s leading intellectuals behind bars for 15 years.[/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=”Fashion Rules” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2F2016%2F12%2Ffashion-rules%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The winter 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at fashion and how people both express freedom through what they wear.
In the issue: interviews with Lily Cole, Paulo Scott and Daphne Selfe, articles by novelists Linda Grant and Maggie Alderson plus Eliza Vitri Handayani on why punks are persecuted in Indonesia.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”82377″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/2016/12/fashion-rules/”][/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.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]H.E. Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva
Switzerland
CC: David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Free Expression
Michele Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders
Dear Mr. High Commissioner,
We, the undersigned human rights organizations, write to urge your office to urgently and publicly call on the Government of Bahrain to immediately and unconditionally release human rights defender Nabeel Rajab and drop the charges against him. His next, and likely final, trial date is scheduled for 28 December.
Nabeel Rajab’s trial is ongoing following the fifth extension of his court proceedings on 15 December. The further delay of Rajab’s trial to late December is additionally concerning due to the precedent established by the Bahraini government to take advantage of the time period around the end of year holidays to further violate human rights. For example, on 28 December 2014, the Government of Bahrain arrested and charged Sheikh Ali Salman, the Secretary General of the now dissolved Al-Wefaq political society, in relation to his free expression. Salman continues to serve a nine-year arbitrary prison sentence following his own lengthy trial.
This December, Nabeel Rajab could face up to 15 years in prison on charges regarding tweets and re-tweets from his account addressing torture in Bahrain’s Jau Prison, as well as criticizing Bahrain’s participation in Saudi Arabia-led military operations in Yemen. These military actions in Yemen, according to the United Nations, have so far been responsible for the deaths of more than 8,100 civilians, and include numerous unlawful airstrikes on markets, homes, hospitals, and schools. Rajab’s comments on Twitter about the Saudi-led coalition airstrikes in Yemen led to his arrest on 2 April 2015. Bahrain’s penal code provides for up to 10 years in prison for anyone who “deliberately announces in wartime false or malicious news, statements or rumors.”
Since June 2016, Rajab has been held in pre-trial detention, including two weeks of solitary confinement following his initial arrest.
Bahraini authorities released Rajab on 13 July 2015 in accordance with a royal pardon for previous Twitter-related charges following extensive international pressure. However, the Public Prosecution maintained this second round of charges against Rajab following his release and ordered his re-arrest nearly a year later on 13 June 2016. Rajab is also facing charges of “offending a foreign country” – Saudi Arabia – and “offending national institutions” for his comments about the torture of inmates at Jau Prison in March 2015. In October 2016, after months of trial hearings, the court reopened his case for investigation rather than dismissing the charges against him due to the lack of evidence.
Moreover, the government brought an additional charge against Rajab in relation to an open letter published in the New York Times on 4 September 2016. The Bahraini authorities immediately responded by charging Rajab with “undermining the prestige of the state.”
Since June 2016, Rajab has been held in pre-trial detention, including two weeks of solitary confinement following his initial arrest. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures state that “pre-trial detention shall be used as a means of last resort in criminal proceedings, with due regard for the investigation of the alleged offence and for the protection of society and the victim.” The government’s use of pretrial solitary confinement against Nabeel Rajab while prosecuting him for free expression is clearly an additional form of reprisal for his work as a human rights defender and is in breach of the UN’s standards for detention.
Nabeel Rajab is the co-founder and president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, the founding director of the Gulf Center for Human Rights, a Deputy Secretary General of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) from 2012 to 2016, and holds advisory positions with Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience. His human rights activism and his peaceful criticism of the Bahraini authorities have resulted in his imprisonment on two previous occasions, between May 2012 and May 2014, and between January 2015 and July 2015.
Mr. High Commissioner, your office has pursued and published a number of communications in relation to human rights abuses perpetuated against Nabeel Rajab. Yet with his likely final court appearance approaching, it is imperative, now more than ever, to use the weight of your office to publicly defend him. We therefore call on you to issue a public statement in defense of Nabeel Rajab as a human rights defender arbitrarily detained for his free and peaceful expression. We further urge you to publicly call on the Government of Bahrain to immediately and unconditionally release Rajab, and to drop all charges against him.
Sincerely,
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain
Albanian Media Institute
Amnesty International
Article 19
Association of Caribbean Media Workers
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Bahrain Human Rights Society
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy
Bahrain Press Association
Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism
Cambodian Center for Human Rights
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Center for Media Studies & Peace Building
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Digital Rights Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
English PEN
European-Bahraini Organisation for Human Rights
European Center for Democracy and Human Rights
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Foundation for Press Freedom – FLIP
Free Media Movement
Freedom Forum
Freedom House
Free Media Movement
Globe International Center
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Independent Journalism Center – Moldova
Index on Censorship
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
International Press Institute
International Service for Human Rights
Journaliste en danger
Maharat Foundation
MARCH
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Institute of Southern Africa
Media Watch
National Union of Somali Journalists
No Peace Without Justice
Norwegian PEN
OpenMedia
Pacific Freedom Forum
Pacific Island News Association
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms – MADA
PEN American Center
PEN Canada
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East European Network for Professionalization of Media
Vigilance pour la Démocratie et l’État Civique
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
World Organization Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
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
Warning: Undefined variable $separator_content in /home/jwkxumhx/public_html/newsite02may/wp-content/plugins/exclusive-divi/includes/modules/Divider/Divider.php on line 340
We are currently working hard to ensure that our new website is in perfect working order so we can continue to bring you the latest news, views and content from around the world. You may find that some pages are currently offline or that you are unable to find something that you are looking for. This is only temporary - and we apologise for any convenience this may cause.
Please consider subscribing to our weekly newsletter below, so that you are among the first to hear from our contributors and don't miss anything in future.
Thanks for your understanding.
?
STAY INFORMED.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
Warning: Undefined variable $separator_content in /home/jwkxumhx/public_html/newsite02may/wp-content/plugins/exclusive-divi/includes/modules/Divider/Divider.php on line 340
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
?
SUPPORT OUR WORK
Index on Censorship’s work is only possible because of donations from people like you.
Please consider chipping in to help us give a voice to the voiceless:
