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
Nigerian writer Ken Saro-Wiwa Junior has died in London, aged 47, following a stroke.
Saro-Wiwa Junior, a journalist and special adviser to three Nigerian presidents, was the son of environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was hanged at the orders of Nigeria’s rulers in 1995.
Saro-Wiwa Junior last featured in Index on Censorship magazine in 2015, marking the 20th anniversary of the hanging by revisiting a letter his father sent him from prison.
In it, Saro-Wiwa Junior wrote: “I am struck now as I was then at the way the letter is clearly written for public consumption as much as for my benefit. I bristled back then at the realisation that I was being served up as a piece of agitprop but now I can smile at the memory.
“I duly did my duty as instructed in the letter, getting the word out to the world’s media and defending my father right up to his execution and for some time after. In a way you could say it was the making of me as a man, a journalist and a writer – pretty much as he predicted in this letter.”
We, the undersigned organisations, recognise that the Turkish government has the right and responsibility to investigate the violent events of the July 2016 coup attempt and to bring all those responsible to justice. We also recognise that the immediate aftermath of the attempted coup is the type of exceptional circumstance in which a government could legitimately invoke a state of emergency but still has to comply with their human rights obligations.
We are however increasingly concerned that the far-reaching, almost unlimited discretionary powers exercised by the Turkish authorities during the first three months of the state of emergency – now extended for a further three months – endanger the general principles of rule of law and human rights safeguards.
We call on the Government of Turkey to revoke the measures under the state of emergency, the application of which, in practice is incompatible with Turkey’s human rights obligations.
During the first three months of the state of emergency, the Turkish authorities have abused emergency provisions to stifle dissent, through the detention of large numbers of individuals, including both real and perceived critics of the government and others. The removal of fair trial protections and crucial safeguards against torture and other ill-treatment exceed permissible, justified derogations and risk violating the absolute prohibition in international law against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In practice, the application of the provisions enable sweeping arrests, where those detained are not presented with credible evidence, preventing them from challenging or seeking redress for human rights violations.
In light of this, the extension of the state of emergency and its associated provisions for a further 90 days, starting from 19 October, is extremely worrying. At the very least, we urge the Government of Turkey to narrow the scope of the emergency measures by revoking provisions that enable human rights violations and are not consistent with Turkey’s obligations under international law.
We also urge Turkey’s international partners, in particular the European Union, the United States and relevant international human rights bodies, to publicly and unequivocally condemn the human rights violations occurring in Turkey in the context of the state of emergency. They should also call on the Turkish government to revoke all emergency provisions that enable human rights violations, and rescind the state of emergency, unless the government is able to demonstrate that the domestic situation continues to threaten the life of the nation.
Removal of safeguards against torture and other ill-treatment
Since the failed coup attempt, the Turkish authorities have remanded into pre-trial detention 34,000 soldiers, officers, policemen, judges, prosecutors, journalists, teachers and others. 70,000 people are under criminal investigation. Numerous provisions in Turkey’s emergency decrees have suspended key safeguards that protect detainees from torture and other ill-treatment in ways that violate Turkey’s international obligations and place detainees at risk. They include:
Prolonged police detention for terrorism-related offences and organised crime without legal review – extended from four days to 30 days;
Denial of a detainee’s right to see a lawyer for up to five days and severe restrictions on the right to choose lawyer during police detention;
Interference with confidential access to a counsel, including monitoring and recording of communications at the request of a prosecutor;
In practice law enforcement officials and agents have undermined those safeguards to an extent exceeding even the permissive leeway granted them under the emergency decrees. A number of non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International, have reported that they have gathered credible evidence that detainees in Turkey were subjected to beatings and torture, including rape.
Abuse of emergency provisions to silence criticism
Provisions of the emergency decrees affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and have been used to facilitate the arrest and harassment of journalists, writers and media workers, including:
Empowering higher levels of administration to shut down any media organization;
Enabling the government to impose curfews, ban public meetings, gatherings and rallies, and restrict access to private and public spaces;
Enabling the authorities to cancel or confiscate passports of anyone under investigation. On 1 September, an amendment to the decree extended this power, enabling the authorities to cancel or confiscate the passports of spouses and partners of those under investigation.
Restrictions imposed under the state of emergency go beyond those permissible under international human rights law, including unjustifiable limitations on media freedom and the right to freedom of expression.
During the first two and a half months of the state of emergency, pursuant to the decrees outlined above, authorities closed around 150 media outlets and publishing companies, leaving over 2,300 journalists and media workers without jobs. At least 99 journalists and writers have been arrested, bringing the total number of media workers detained on charges believed to be related to their exercise of the right to freedom of expression to at least 130, as of 19 October 2016. These numbers exclude other journalists who are currently in detention in police holding cells, or have been detained and released without charge during the state of emergency. Emergency provisions have also been used to harass family members of journalists who have fled abroad or gone into hiding, including by cancelling their passports or detaining them in the stead of those accused.
Such measures against journalists and media workers obstruct the right of people in Turkey to receive information about current events and to hold the government to account.
The Government of Turkey should ensure that the state of emergency and the related emergency decrees are not tools to facilitate serious human rights violations and to silence dissent. Meanwhile, Turkey’s international partners should not ignore the serious violations committed in the context of the state of emergency and should urgently call upon Turkey to rescind or amend the emergency provisions that are not consistent with the country’s international human rights obligations.
Battle of Ideas 2016 A weekend of thought-provoking public debate taking place on 22 and 23 October at the Barbican Centre. Join the main debates or satellite events.
Comedy and censorship: Are you kidding me? Is the fear of offence killing comedy? Jodie Ginsberg, Timandra Harkness, Will Franken, Tom Walker and Steve Bennett with chair Andrew Doyle.
From hate speech to cyber-bullying: Is social media too toxic?
What of the free speech of those harassed into silence by a stream of abuse? And what of the abuse itself, consisting, as it so often seems to, of fantasy punishments and name-calling? Is that speech worth defending?
Earlier this year, Labour MP Yvette Cooper kicked off #ReclaimTheInternet, a cross-party campaign against misogynist abuse online.
The reception was mixed at best. Many people were excited and thankful for the initiative, and it isn’t hard to see why when you look the racist abuse and threats of violence being thrown at people for expressing an opinion online. Right on cue, the MPs behind the campaign have been subjected to a barrage of abuse (some legal, some not).
The impact of online abuse is poorly understood, and perhaps most poorly understood by those who do it, but the harm it can do is unquestionable. Research by The Guardian into abusive comments included interviews with journalists who spoke about an emotional and physical toll, though this can only scratch the surface. It isn’t difficult to find examples of people who have taken their own lives after campaigns of online harassment. Tragically, it is when the person subjected to abuse doesn’t have the platform to speak out against their harassment that we tend only to hear about it when headlines become epitaphs.
But for many, there was something sinister about #ReclaimTheInternet. The thought police were back. It’s one of the internet’s favourite narratives. There is a strong libertarian tradition online, particularly on social media, always watchful for attempts by overbearing states to impinge on free speech online.
One well-followed advocate for free speech on Twitter, @SkipLicker, was vehement in his opposition. “Free speech means freedom from Government censorship,” he tweeted. “Not freedom from ridicule because you talk bollocks.”
The thing is, he’s absolutely right: social media as a public forum has a vital role in our democracy. It is a public forum for debate, where hundreds of thousands of British citizens engage in politics. It is a platform for users to voice their political opinions, whatever the shade. It is a channel through which those who govern us can be taken to task. If you need more evidence about the democratic role social media can play, take a look at the countries which suppress it.
Ridicule, though. Not harassment.
A favourite cartoon that emerges whenever someone mentions abuse online is of a woman shovelling manure over a wall and then complaining when manure comes the other way. It’s quite funny, but it misses the point because frequently it isn’t an eye for an eye. If only it was: if for every opinion somebody saw online that they disagreed with, they responded in kind, the internet would be an (even more) brilliant place. But death threats aren’t responding in kind, and death threats aren’t “trolling”.
Over the last couple of years, the “internet troll” has emerged as a catch-all term for unpleasantness on the internet. Everything from sustained, sexually aggravated harassment to posting atheist arguments in a Christian chatroom is lumped together under an evocative, easily digestible insult.
This wasn’t always the case.
Plenty of the most dedicated trolls themselves lament the good old days when trolling was really trolling. Cleverly crafted images or phrases – offensive, controversial, but legal – stirred up horrified reactions. Trolls might work for weeks at a time, lurking in a forum or comments section, perfecting the perfect taunt that might start the biggest argument, then sit back and watch the carnage unfold. The very word emerged in the early 1990s from the idea of “trolling” a line with some juicy bait and seeing who bites.
Trolling is, in many ways, a firmly established British tradition. An episode of Brass Eye or a copy of the Private Eye should be enough to convince you of that. Nobody does satire like us Brits, and there’s still plenty of it online.
The examples of clever trolling are endless. In 2010, a neo-nazi march in Bavaria found themselves being “sponsored” for their walk with all the money going to anti-extremist organisations. Bananas were served as refreshments: “Mein Mampf! (My Munch!)”.
More recently, supporters of Bernie Sanders found themselves facing placard-touting trolls raising money for the victims of socialism at one of his rallies.
I have previously writtenin defence of trolling. It might be satirical. It might be expressing a controversial opinion or offensive remark, hoping to provoke a reaction. It might be Sunderland fans flying a 30ft banner over St James’ Park gloating at their rivals’ relegation.
I spoke to Old Holborn, one of Twitter’s longest-standing and most highly-followed free speech advocates once described by the Daily Mail as “Britain’s vilest troll”. Trolling, according to Old Holborn, “is the (not so) gentle art of carefully selecting an irresistible morsel of bait to seduce a willing prey into breaking their own freedom of speech censorship or personal values of good taste. It exposes hypocrisy, self-denial and the inner soul and values of the individual. If your opinions are laughable to some, expect some to publicly laugh at them.”
But trolling isn’t rape threats.
“Threats are not trolling,” writes Old Holborn. “Rape, violence and murder remain the basis of intimidation and are designed to silence. We worship robust banter, not the cold, obedient silence of terror. Laugh a little, prod, poke and provoke. We’re all the richer for genuine trolling.”
What happened to the trolls of yore? They’re still out there and they still play an important role in reminding us that offensive or unpleasant opinions that test the limits of free speech are vital in a society that prides itself on free public debate. In an age where students are demanding safe zones from opinions they disagree with and algorithms ensure we only see content we like, it’s vital we encounter stuff we don’t agree with.
But we have plenty of people who don’t deserve the title of troll. Hangers-on – wannabe trolls, perhaps – whose recourse to crude threats of violence or recourse to racist or misogynistic abuse bear no resemblance to the trolling of old. It’s a shame that trolling has come to mean this because it has muddied the waters on what is OK to say online and what isn’t. I would be surprised if those trolls who do look to provoke, ridicule and satirise didn’t feel the same, particularly as I know some have been the subject of death threats and threats to their families and children.
Free speech has been debated for centuries but it has never been an absolute right. Even the First Amendment, the Holy Grail, has limitations on what you’re allowed to say. Our own British law says that the standards of an “open and just multi-racial society” has no space for racially-aggravated abuse.
The free speech absolutist is out of step with the society they claim to advocate for.
And yet what do we do about encroachments? What do we do when justified criticism is silenced as “bullying” or “abusive” or “offensive”? How about when an epidemic of safe spaces outgrow any pretence to protection and become tools of censorship and suppression? Or when sharing a platform with somebody is suddenly tantamount to endorsing them, perhaps the most ludicrous and contradictory charge levelled at public figures lately?
We must call it out. We ought to continue to push against the borders of acceptability, embrace the offensive and celebrate the satirical. We must seek out and confront opposing viewpoints, ever more difficult in a world where algorithms and laziness drive us into echo chambers of consenting views.
But we ought to pick our battles.
We live in a world where the young are less comfortable than ever with free speech. Convincing them that we need to be allowed to racially abuse people online is a waste of breath and it risks alienating them further.
Instead, we need to speak to them of the importance of dissenting opinion. We need to explain how it differs from abuse. We need to stress the importance of the offensive and being offended. We need to encourage them to actually engage with something they disagree with and reject it, not stifle it before it speaks a word. Rather than reacting angrily to any attempt to make the internet a better place, those with libertarian beliefs might do well to pick their battles, to protect that which is most important.
We need to stand up for satire, for controversial opinions, for being offensive, for the good trolls. We don’t need to stand up for rape threats.
Alex Krasodomski-Jones is a researcher for the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media CASM at Demos, a British cross-party think tank.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1485724379379-f195b0d0-ae74-5″ taxonomies=”8826″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
We, the undersigned organisations, write to you regarding the systematic targeting of journalists, human rights defenders and online activists by the Internal Security Service (ISS) in Oman.
We believe that these recent arrests and prosecutions are part of an ongoing attempt to silence and curtail the right to press freedom as well as freedom of expression.
Since October 10, 2016, the three Azamn journalists sentenced to years in prison by the Court of First Instance in Muscat are free, pending the outcome of the appeal which is expected on November 7th.
Ibrahim Al-Maamari, the editor-in-chief of the Omani independent newspaper Azamn, and managing editor Youssef Al-Haj were freed after the appeal court, at their lawyers’ request, reduced the amount of bail to 2,000 rials (4,000 euros) fromthe 50,000 rials (110,000 euros) set by the court that convicted them. The third defendant in this case, Azamn local news editor Zaher Al-Abri, was already released conditionally on August 22nd.
On September 26, 2016, the Court of First Instance had imposed harsh jail sentences on these three journalists and ordered the permanent closure of the Azamn newspaper.
The arrests of the journalists and the closure of the newspaper came after a report, published in July 2016, which accused unnamed officials of influencing the Chief Magistrate of the Supreme Court, to intervene in judicial proceedings. The Vice-President of the Supreme Court thanked the newspaper for the report and for dissemination of “facts without a slur on anybody”.
More precisely, Ibrahim Al-Maamari and Yousef Al-Haj were convicted of four common charges – “disturbing public order, misuse of the Internet, publishing details of a civil case, and undermining the prestige of the state.” They were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, in addition to a fine of 3000 RO and a ban on working as a journalist for a period of one year. Two additional charges were brought against Yousef Al-Haj: “publishing about a case for which a decree had been issued to ban news about it, and slander.”
Journalist Zaher Al-Abri was sentenced to one-year imprisonment and fined 1000 RO after being found guilty of using “an information network [the Internet] for the dissemination of material that might be prejudicial to public order.”
These harsh sentences are a clear attempt to hinder the work of journalists and to curtail the right to freedom of expression and opinion in Oman. The imprisonment of journalists whose only crime was to exercise their profession in a legitimate manner and the censorship of this story do not bode well for the future of journalism and civil liberties in the Sultanate, which is ranked 125th out of 180 countries in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders.
In relation with the Azamn case, many online activists showing support with the journalists were targeted by the authorities. Saqr Al-Balushi, and writer Hamood Al-Shukaily, arrested both respectively on October 5th and August 14th, remain in detention. Mohammed Al-Harthi, however, who was arrested on August 18th in relation with posts he made on Twitter in which he expressed his views on corruption and solidarity with the Azamn newspaper, was released the following day.
The undersigned organisations express serious concern at the ISS’ systematic targeting of journalists, writers, human rights defenders including online activists, and view it as a deplorable and urgent threat to media freedom and freedom of expression in Oman.
We call on you to use your influence in Oman to:
Protect freedom of the media and freedom of speech, especially online;
Revoke the closure order of Azamn newspaper by the Ministry of Information;
Revoke the sentences issued against journalists Ibrahim Al-Maamari, Yousef Al-Haj and Zaher Al-Abri;
Immediately and unconditionally release online activists Hamood Al-Shukaily and Saqr Al-Balushi;
Ensure that the ISS stops its attacks on media freedom and freedom of expression and its targeting of journalists, online activists and other human rights defenders;
To guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders including journalists, writers and online activists in Oman are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.
Signed:
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Front Line Defenders (FLD)
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Index on Censorship
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
International Federation of Journalism (IFJ)
PEN International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Battle of Ideas 2016 A weekend of thought-provoking public debate taking place on 22 and 23 October at the Barbican Centre. Join the main debates or satellite events.
Comedy and censorship: Are you kidding me? Is the fear of offence killing comedy? Jodie Ginsberg, Timandra Harkness, Will Franken, Tom Walker and Steve Bennett with chair Andrew Doyle.
From hate speech to cyber-bullying: Is social media too toxic?
What of the free speech of those harassed into silence by a stream of abuse? And what of the abuse itself, consisting, as it so often seems to, of fantasy punishments and name-calling? Is that speech worth defending?
We live in serious times, what with civil wars, US elections and the threat of Marmite rationing. But there’s always room in the news for outrage about a joke.
In the last few days Simon Cowell has been reprimanded for making a “back door” joke to X Factor host Rylan Clark-Neal, and singer Lily Allen for a stupid pun on the word “gyppo,” recorded several years ago. Meanwhile, Canadian comic Mike Ward, who was fined $42,000 by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal for making jokes about a singer with disabilities, has been given leave to appeal.
The Ward case rightly drew support from comedians (and others) who didn’t particularly like the material. David Mitchell, commenting in The Guardian on jokes like Ward’s, said: “If we take ‘OK’ to mean ‘nice’, ‘polite’, ‘admirable’ or ‘kind’, then it isn’t. But if, by OK, we simply mean ‘legal’, then of course it’s OK. And quite right too.”
Offence depends heavily on context. Anybody who tells jokes for a living can easily imagine finding that an offensive gag is now a civil or even criminal offence. Collective self-interest alone should be (and usually is) enough to make comedians hold the line that legally, at least, anything goes in comedy.
This is not to say that one joke is as good as another. As writers, performers and audience members, we should discriminate between good and bad work. But this is a matter of quality, not morality. Lazy comedy presses the obvious buttons of the target audience. That can mean “back door” jokes about gay sex, or making fun of Donald Trump.
But you can hit the same targets without being lazy. Comedian Trevor Noah, host of the Daily Show, attacked both Donald Trump and the response to “Pussygate” with material that mocks those outraged by his use of “the P-word”, instead of by sexual assault. By ending his routine with the phrase “no pussy for me,” Noah will have offended those people all over again. That’s his point: it’s not about the word.
Although I prefer comedy that challenges the audience, rudely or gently, it’s no more possible to draw a line around acceptable approaches than around permitted subject matter. Again, it’s all about context. The same joke can shake one audience’s core beliefs, but reinforce another’s smug certainties.
So there should be no holds barred in comedy, nothing forbidden and nothing out of bounds. Leave it to the judgment of writers, performers and the audience. Especially the audience, because any kind of censorship is depriving them of their right to be offended.
Nobody has a right not to be offended. Certainly not a right enforced on their behalf by those in authority. How can anyone feel at once so vulnerable about being able to withstand unpleasant humour, and yet so confident in their capacity to draw the line of social acceptability?
It’s an absurd position, that only makes sense if each individual’s feelings are the supreme arbiter of moral value. And if each of us can insist that the law, or collective social censure, forbid the hurting of our feelings, there will soon be nothing left in shared culture but the blandest, safest, most anodyne pap.
We do all have the right to express our feelings of anger and disgust if we don’t like a joke. We have the right to leave the venue or switch the channel, to speak or write our own views, or simply to withhold our laughter which, for a comedian, is akin to withholding oxygen.
Though we should ask ourselves what provokes these feelings in us. Is it targetting of the weak, asking us to become vicarious bullies? Is it an unsettling of our ideas about ourselves, as we laugh at things we never thought we’d find funny? Or is it that we don’t think other people should listen to this, in case weaker minds than ours are poisoned by words or images?
If it’s the first, that you’re simply not amused by “punching down,” (or gratuitous lewdness, or whatever) don’t laugh. Be unamused. Like a tango, comedy takes at least two, and if one side of the partnership is not in the mood, comedy will quickly go flaccid.
If you don’t like being unsettled, that’s also fine. Not everybody goes to comedy to be made to think, just as not everybody goes to the opera for the thrilling discords of the latest Harrison Birtwhistle. Pick a different comedian next time. But it’s not up to you to prevent others subjecting their fondly-held ideas to the test of mockery, or of sudden shifts of perspective.
If your objection is that other people may be swayed by a joke to views you don’t like, you may be over-estimating the power of comedy or underestimating your fellow humans’ capacity to think for themselves. Or both. Either way, the only word for trying to prevent somebody else from seeing or hearing something is censorship.
As somebody who still writes and performs comedy, I’m almost flattered that anybody thinks it has that much power. It’s a long time since I was worthy of censure or censorship. So long that the offending material was about the aftermath of Diana’s tragic death in a car crash. These days the most controversial material I do involves a graph of the medical benefits of moderate drinking (you’d be surprised how provocative that can be to the right audience).
When I do shows, I hope people leave both amused and provoked to think afresh. As a writer and performer, I craft each line with that in mind.
But as a human being, I know that my audience arrived in the venue with their own thoughts, leave with their own thoughts, and engage with my ideas on their own terms, if at all. So politically, more important than anything I can say or show to them in that venue is the fact that they are free to decide for themselves what to see, what to hear, and what to think.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1485724697354-3cadb031-9134-7″ taxonomies=”8826″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
The British government has been condemned by press freedom groups for seizing an award-winning Syrian journalist’s travel documents upon her arrival at London’s Heathrow airport. Read the full article
One of South Asia’s most influential news magazines, Himal Southasian, is to close next month after 29 years of publishing as part of a clampdown on freedom of expression across the region. The magazine has a specific goal: to unify the divided countries in South Asia by informing and educating readers on issues that stretch throughout the region, not just one community.
Index got a chance to speak with Himal Southasian’s editor, Aunohita Mojumdar, on the vital role of independent media in South Asia, the Nepali government’s complicated way of silencing activists and what the future holds for journalism in the region.
“The means used to silence us are not straightforward but nor are they unique,” Mojumdar said. “Throughout the region one sees increasing use of regulatory means to clamp down on freedom of expression, whether it relates to civil society activists, media houses, journalists or human rights campaigners.”
Himal Southasian, which claims to be the only analytical and regional news magazine for South Asia, faced months of bureaucratic roadblocks before the funding for the magazine’s publisher, the Southasia Trust, was cut off due to non-cooperation by regulatory state agencies in Nepal, said the editor. This is a common tactic among the neighbouring countries as governments are wary of using “direct attacks or outright censorship” for fear of public backlash.
But for Nepal it wasn’t always this way. “Nepal earlier stood as the country where independent media and civil society not accepted by their own countries could function fearlessly,” Mojumdar said.
In a statement announcing its suspension of publication as of November 2016, Himal Southasian explained that without warning, grants were cut off, work permits for editorial staff became difficult to obtain and it started to experience “unreasonable delays” when processing payments for international contributors. “We persevered through the repercussions of the political attack on Himal in Parliament in April 2014, as well as the escalating targeting of Kanak Mani Dixit, Himal’s founding editor and Trust chairman over the past year,” it added.
Index on Censorship: Why is an independent media outlet like Himal Southasian essential in South Asia?
Aunohita Mojumdar: While the region has robust media, much of it is confined in its coverage to the boundaries of the nation-states or takes a nationalistic approach while reporting on cross-border issues. Himal’s coverage is based on the understanding that the enmeshed lives of almost a quarter of the world’s population makes it imperative to deal with both challenges and opportunities in a collaborative manner.
The drum-beating jingoism currently on exhibit in the mainstream media of India and Pakistan underline how urgent it is for a different form of journalism that is fact-based and underpinned by rigorous research. Himal’s reportage and analysis generate awareness about issues and areas that are underreported. It’s long-form narrative journalism also attempts to ensure that the power of good writing generates interest in these issues. Based on a recognition of the need for social justice for the people rather than temporary pyrrhic victories for the political leaderships, Himal Southasian brings journalism back to its creed of being a public service good.
Index: Did the arrest of Kanak Mani Dixit, the founding editor for Himal Southasian, contribute to the suspension of Himal Southasian or the treatment the magazine received from regulatory agencies?
Mojumdar: In the case of Himal or its publisher the non-profit Southasia Trust, neither entity is even under investigation. We can only surmise that the tenuous link is that the chairman of the trust, Kanak Mani Dixit, is under investigation since we have received no formal information. Informally we have indeed been told that there is political pressure related to the “investigation” which prevents the regulatory bodies from providing their approval.
The lengthy process of this denial – we had applied in January 2016 for the permission to use a secured grant and in December 2015 for the work permit, effectively diminished our ability to function as an organisation until the point of paralysis. While the case against Dixit is itself contentious and currently sub judice, Himal has not been intimated by any authority that it is under any kind of scrutiny. On the contrary, regulatory officials inform us informally that we have fulfilled every requirement of law and procedure, but cite political pressure for their inability to process our requests. Our finances are audited independently and the audit report, financial statements, bank statements and financial reporting are submitted to the Nepal government’s regulatory bodies as well as to the donors.
Index: Why is Nepal utilising bureaucracy to indirectly shut down independent media? Why are they choosing indirect methods rather than direct censorship?
Mojumdar: The means used to silence us are not straightforward but nor are they unique. Throughout the region one sees increasing use of regulatory means to clamp down on freedom of expression, whether it relates to civil society activists, media houses, journalists or human rights campaigners. Direct attacks or outright censorship are becoming rarer as governments have begun to fear the backlash of public protests.
Index: With the use of bureaucratic force to shut down civil society activists and media growing in Nepal, how does the future look for independent media in South Asia?
Mojumdar: This is actually a regional trend. However, while Nepal earlier stood as the country where independent media and civil society not accepted by their own countries could function fearlessly, the closing down of this space in Nepal is a great loss. As a journalist I myself was supported by the existence of the Himal Southasian platform. When the media of my home country, India, were not interested in publishing independent reporting from Afghanistan, Himal reached out to me and published my article for the eight years that I was based in Kabul as a freelancer. We are constantly approached by journalists wishing to write the articles that they cannot publish in their own national media.
The fact that regulatory means to silence media and civil society is meeting with such success here and that an independent platform is getting scarce support within Nepal’s civil society will also be a signal for others in power wishing to use the same means against voices of dissent.
It is a struggle for the media to be independent and survive. In an era where corporate interests increasingly drive the media’s agenda, it is important for all of us to reflect on what we can all do to ensure the survival of small independent organisations, many of which, like us, face severe challenges.
Journalist Zaina Erhaim says the Syrian government wants her killed and that co-operating with Syrian officials, by seizing her passport, was a very dangerous thing for the UK to have done. “It’s obvious that they are still dealing with Assad as a president, not a criminal.”
Erhaim, a Chevening scholar and award-winning reporter, had her passport confiscated by British officials when she flew into London to take part in a literature festival with former BBC foreign correspondent Kate Adie. Erhaim, who won the 2016 Index award for journalism, voiced concern that the actions of officials in the UK suggested that they condoned the Syrian government. “They were speaking about the regime with really tender language as if was a legitimate government,” she said.
The journalist was speaking at a press conference, organised by the Council for Arab-British Understanding, in conjunction with Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and the Frontline Club. Her passport was seized at Heathrow on September 22 after being reported as stolen by the Syrian government.
Erhaim considers herself to be lucky because she has another passport, even if it is now full. She is also thankful that she works for an international organisation, speaks English and has the support of other journalists.
“If this happened to another Syrian who doesn’t have another valid passport and he or she’s not supported, what would happen?,” she asked. “Because if [border officials] are following the rules, they should deport him or her back to Damascus.”
Another major concern for her is making sure European governments are not able to deport Syrians fleeing from war in the future without the press being informed.
She said: “I’m not optimistic that the Home Office is going to be doing something about the situation, I’m not optimistic that my passport is going to be returned, and even if it’s returned I don’t think I would be able to use it again.”
When asked what a future without her passport holds, Erhaim said: “I believe this is going to be the last trip abroad I’m making. This is not as scary as not being able to go back to Turkey because all my family is there, the father of my baby is there. I don’t have my exit stamp for Turkey because that’s on the new passport. So they might ask me, ‘Where is your exit stamp?’ and not allow me in, which is really scary.”
If Erhaim is unable to gain access to Turkey, the only other option she sees at the moment is to stay in Britain or another European country where she holds a visa and seek asylum. This is a prospect she currently rejects. “I’m not ready for that,” she said.
Erhaim’s future may be uncertain but she will continue to fight and will only consider asking for asylum if she was threatened in Turkey or survived an assassination attempt.
“I would rather be stuck in Turkey than here, and I will try to go back.”
An award-winning Syrian journalist who had her passport confiscated in the UK at the request of the Syrian Government says she fears she may not be reunited with her family if the document is returned to Damascus. Read the full article
Killings, imprisonments and other methods to silence journalists happens all too often, in Europe as elsewhere in the world. In this editorial, the importance of being on the side of those who are threatened
10 October 2016: Belarus Free Theatre project Ai Weiwei’s symbol of freedom of expression onto five iconic buildings across London to highlight the case of Oleg Sentsov. Credit: Graeme Robertson
“We urgently call upon British politicians to put justice, human rights and international law ahead of business interests and to look afresh at the cases of the Kremlin hostages, [and] all political prisoners held by Russia, including our friend Oleg Sentsov,” co-founding artistic director of Belarus Free Theatre, Natalia Kaliada said.
On Monday 10 October, the theatre company hosted Freedom of Expression in Ukraine, an event at the House of Commons, in solidarity with Oleg Sentsov, a popular film director and pro-Ukrainian activist serving a 20-year prison sentence as well as all other Ukrainian political prisoners currently detained in Russian jails.
Sentsov is currently imprisoned in Siberia and is facing 18 more years in jail on charges of being part of a terrorist conspiracy. Sentsov has stated that he was tortured by investigators, and that a key witness recanted in the courtroom on the grounds that evidence had been extorted under torture. His lawyers describe the case against him as “absurd and fictitious”.
The night included a film calling for Sentsov’s release featuring actor Simon Callow, Belarusian Nobel Laureate for Literature Svetlana Alexievich, Polish film director and chair of European Film Academy Agnieszka Holland, actor Will Attenborough, film director Yuri Khaschevatsky and fashion designer and activist, Vivienne Westwood.
Natalia Kaplan, a cousin of Sentsov, could not be in London for the event but recorded a special video appeal for his release.
Pussy Riot’s Maria Alyokhina and members of Belarus Free Theatre read extracts of letters from Sentsov and short scenes from Belarus Free Theatre’s latest production, Burning Doors. Other speakers included Andrei Khliyvynuk, activist and frontman of Ukrainian supergroup Boombox, and film and theatre-director-turned-soldier Eugene Stepanenko.
Nobel Laureate for Literature Svetlana Alexievich and British filmmaker Lord Puttnam both recorded a special message for the event.
Sentsov first came to the attention of the international film world with Gamer, a debut feature inspired by the computer and video-gaming club for young people that he had founded. It opened to great acclaim at the Rotterdam International Film Festival in 2012.
The European Film Academy together with leading international film directors, including Pedro Almodóvar, Wim Wenders, Stephen Daldry, Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, have campaigned for Sentsov’s release, echoing the grave concerns of Amnesty International that his trial was a “total fiasco” and that the “entire case for the prosecution is built on a house of cards”.
Fernando Bovaira named Sentsov an honorary member of the 62nd San Sebastian Film Festival’s main competition jury, and a chair was reserved for him in solidarity.
During the evening, an image of Ai Weiwei’s middle finger was projected onto five iconic buildings in London: The National Gallery’s Sainsbury Wing, The Forth Plinth in Trafalgar Square, Royal Opera House, Soho’s Gerrard Street and Tate Modern, together with a short film of Sentsov’s “sham trial” to garner UK public support and attention to his plight.
Ai’s finger, is used as a symbol of freedom “a powerful reminder of the need to strive for justice and freedom of expression,” explained Kaliada.
Credit: Graeme Robertson.
Credit: Graeme Robertson
Credit: Graeme Robertson
Credit: Graeme Robertson
Credit: Graeme Robertson
The demonstration was part of Belarus Free Theatre’s I’m with the Banned campaign which is an artist-led effort to bring together those who live in political freedom in solidarity with artists and activists who are censored or imprisoned in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and anywhere else in the world where justice and freedom are denied.
Kaliada said: “In recent months, Ukraine has disappeared off the public radar even though the war rages on and Russia continues to drag the world into a new Cold War at a highly sophisticated level that endangers people living in the geopolitical knot known as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as threatening the global security of people further across the world.”
She said that London is where the founding members of Belarus Free Theatre sought shelter five years ago when they arrived in the UK as political refugees from Belarus.”For one night, the walls of the city will speak on behalf of those who are silenced, and one of the greatest capitals of the world will stand with us in solidarity with Oleg Sentsov,” she said. “As contemporary artists and human beings we have only one tool: creativity.”
Free speech advocates have warned about new prosecuting guidelines which open the door to social media users being jailed for “offensive” and “sinister” posts.
Experts from the Index on Censorship and English PEN both voiced unease that moves in the UK to further outlaw offending people online could lead down a dark road. Read the full article
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:
One of South Asia’s most influential news magazines, 
Nigerian writer Ken Saro-Wiwa Junior has died in London, aged 47, following a stroke.