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
Academic freedom has been the subject of many debates in recent months. With speakers regularly being no-platformed, and increasing violations of safe space, universities and student unions across the UK have faced harsh criticism.
This growing trend of banning speakers from debates rather than confronting their views head on has led to calls for reforms in university policies in protecting academic freedom and so-called “safe space”.
When human rights activist and ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie was invited by the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (ASH) to speak at Goldsmiths University in December 2015 she faced heckles and interruptions from students who opposed her views.
Throughout Namazie’s talk about blasphemy and apostasy members of Goldsmiths University’s Islamic Society (ISOC) caused a disruption by laughing, shouting out and even switching off her presentation, leading to some students being removed by security.
Namazie spoke to Index about the importance of academic freedom, stating: “Universities have always been hotbeds of dissent and progressive politics. They are places where anything can and should be discussed and debated – where deeply held sensibilities and beliefs can be reviewed, opposed and challenged.
“If you can’t express yourself on a university campus, doing so off-campus is usually even harder. Where academic freedom is restricted, it is a measure of the limits of free speech in society at large.”
Speaking about the Goldsmiths incident, Namazie refuses to be intimidated. She believes those pushing the Islamist narrative want to prevent a counter-narrative on university campuses and therefore it is more important for her to go and speak on any campus she is invited to and to push to be allowed where she is denied access.
“My family fled the Islamic regime of Iran in order to live freer lives. Therefore, it’s especially important for me to speak up, particularly given how many face imprisonment or lose their lives in doing so. I feel I have an added responsibility to speak for those who cannot,” she told Index.
In September 2015 Namazie was invited to speak at Warwick University by the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists’ Society, but her invitation was withdrawn by the University’s Student Union, who claimed her views would “incite hatred on campus”.
Other activists including Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel have also been silenced on campuses for their controversial views.
Namazie believes no-platforming is having a chilling effect on students’ academic freedom. She told Index: “These policies equate speech with real harm and violence though clearly there is a huge distinction between speech and action. Criticising Islam and Islamism, for example, is not the same as attacking Muslims. Nonetheless, I have been accused of ‘inciting violence’ or ‘inciting discrimination’ against Muslims.”
Human rights activist Peter Tatchell was involved in a dispute in February after National Union of Students’ LGBT representative Fran Cowling, declined to attend an event at the Canterbury Christ Church University at which Tatchell was giving a keynote address and participating on a panel.
He told Index: “Academic freedom is a crucial element of a free and open society. The right to explore, research, articulate, debate and contest ideas — even disagreeable ones — is a democratic hallmark.
“Imposing restrictions is the slippery slope to authoritarianism. As well as diminishing the realm of knowledge and understanding, it reinforces conformism and the status quo; putting a break on dissent and innovation.”
Right2Debate are a student-led movement who are campaigning for an end to censoring and no-platforming in universities by calling for student unions to reform their policies contesting rather than removing divisive and extremist narratives.
The movement, which has 100 student activists across 12 different UK universities and a further 3000 signatures of support, are aiming to have their four-point policy implemented by student unions across the UK. The policy’s outcomes include debate taking place over censorship, uncontested platforms for extremist speakers and transparency in the way the student unions conduct external speaker policy and challenging extremist/divisive narratives.
Haydar Zaki, Quilliam’s Outreach Right2Debate programme coordinator, told Index: “We are in this hostile environment to free speech because of the fruitless terms that have been employed at universities which include safe spaces and duty of care. In reality, these terms are completely open to interpretation, and have led to the chaos we see today whereby speakers are banned (or initially banned) at one university, but then freely allowed in others.
“What student unions and universities need to do is actually start implementing policies that are transparent and uniform — emphasising academic rights and the right to challenge over censorship.”
Bigoted ideas in society need challenging. To do so students require an academic environment that is willing to have open and civil discussions on all types of ideas, including those that could be deemed offensive, believes Benjamin David, an editor at Right2Debate.
Academic freedom is also essential for developing as a society, he told Index: “Academic freedom is important for a variety of reasons, none so pressing than the instrumental value that it has in making advancements in science, law or politics. Such advancements necessitate that the free discussion of opinion is available.”
The summer 2015 issue of Index on Censorship magazine which focuses on academic freedom. Subscribe here to get your copy.
Professor Chris Frost, former head of journalism at Liverpool John Moores University, agrees. Frost believes academic freedom is important for new ideas to be explored. He told Index: “Academic freedom is critical as it allows academics to investigate matters that may be generally considered socially unacceptable simply because there has been no previous investigation. We cannot expand knowledge and understanding if we don’t challenge socially accepted concepts and seek proof to support our theories. Preventing academic research leads to a stifled society and one that will eventually destroy itself through its own limitations.”
Academic freedom is a regular topic for debate for the Index on Censorship Youth Advisory Board, a group of young professionals who meet up for monthly online meetings to discuss current free speech issues. The board spoke to Index about why academic freedom is important to them.
Board member, freelance journalist and race, ethnicity and conflict Masters student, Layli Foroudi, told Index: “Academic freedom is important to me because the purpose of research and study should be to investigate reality, to seek to shed light on some aspect of life, or “truth” — and most importantly, to challenge other people’s truth claims. If there is no academic freedom then there will only be a narrow view of reality that is being purported and left unchallenged.”
Mark Crawford, a postgraduate student specialising in Russian and post-Soviet politics at University College London and current board member, added: “As a historian, it always seemed to me that academic freedom was the closest anyone can really get to ideas breaking down monopolies of power -– hard, scientific investigation can cut through the emotions around nationalism or religion, and afterwards you’re left with truths that however inconvenient are always extremely necessary for new and better narratives to be built.”
This article was updated on 3 May 2016. Corrects to clarify the nature of the dispute over Peter Tatchell’s appearance at Canterbury Christ Church University.
Josie Timms is editorial assistant at Index on Censorship and the first Liverpool John Moores University/Tim Hetherington fellow.
Index reported on 22 April that the case against Azerbaijani writer Akram Aylisli, who previously faced charges of hooliganism after being detained at Baku Haydar Aliyev International Airport on 30 March, has expanded to include charges of resisting the authorities with violence. Under article 315.1 of the criminal code, this is punishable by up to three years in prison.
The move came following an open letter Aylisli sent to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. In it, he points to the absurdity of the claim that a “78-year-old heart patient, a weak man” could assault a 35-year-old “stocky athlete”. The writer asked the president to intervene and remove the criminal case against him.
Here is the translation of the letter:
President of Azerbaijan Mr. Ilham Aliyev
Dear Mr. President,
The investigation of the “criminal case” against me is about to be finished.
My supposed “crime” is that when I arrived to Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airoport, intending to travel to Venice to take part in literary festival on 30 March-2 April, I supposedly made an act of hooliganism, not captured on any of the video surveillance cameras, and later supposedly assaulted a border service officer, in a room with no surveillance cameras, punching him with such force as to cause bruising.
To convince anyone that a 78 year old, suffering from heart condition, physically weak person can generate such assault physical force against a 35 year old stocky athlete is, most certainly, absolutely impossible and beyond belief. I should most sincerely tell you that, having learned of this absurd accusation in the police department, I absolutely could not believe that it may reach the court of law.
I thought that measures should be taken against such primitive accusations put forward against celebrated writer who was awarded a high order of “independence” for exceptional contribution to Azerbaijan literature. I could not hide from you, Mr. President, that, I expected from you personally, that in this matter your authoritative voice would be heard.
However, unfortunately, my hopes were in vain. Once again I became convinced that top government structures are not interested in me living a tranquil life, continuing my many years of literary work.
It is very difficult for me to understand who would benefit from this unprovoked incident in the airport. However, it is clear that I could not, at all, be the side interested in stirring such an incident.
In the last few years my family had to suffer all kinds of insults and hardship, and I had very strong psychological need for opportunities for peaceful existence in my own country. However, with much regret I must state that the reality is quite opposite, and I have all reasons to believe that the campaign against me and my family, started 3 years ago, is to continue.
In my opinion, Mr. President, there was no need to restart this campaign!
First of all, the reason for that is that my short novel “Stone Dreams”, published several years ago, in the recent times finally left the political context and started to live an appropriate, unbiased literary life. Many well-established publishing houses, not involved in international politics, estimated the book highly just for its artistic and esthetic qualities and decided to publish it. I was very happy that my book is not serving seasonal nationalistic interests, but via its humanistic ideas and high humane values serves the national Azerbaijani literature tradition
I could name globally recognized scientists, artists and politicians who accepted my book as literary work with humanistic and peace-loving perspective.
I often get letters via the internet from ordinary people from many countries. In those unsolicited letters, the literary and esthetic values of the book are emphasized.
For example, I was very touched to read a letter from the 3rd year student of Bratislava University’s Russian and Eastern European Studies faculty, Patrisia Patzelitova, who has written course work and is now writing a bachelor diploma on my long-suffering novel “Stone Dreams”. The author of this letter, who is very far from any kind of political intrigue, who sees no difference between ordinary Armenians and ordinary Azerbaijanis, tries to evaluate the artistic ideas of “Stone Dreams” most objectively.
In my opinion, it would be wrong to speculate that my nomination for Nobel Prize by 13 respected professors from different countries is in any way an Armenia-related initiative. None of those intellectuals are political actors interested in temporary, short-term political intrigue. I was long sure that while we ignore the opinion of the world, the world will also not listen to us.
I could provide many examples of sympathy towards my work from unbiased people that should change the attitude of Azerbaijan’s government towards me. However, unfortunately, it has not changed.
The government, in line with historic precedence, wanted to prove that it could never be wrong. However, I always thought that the government may also be wrong and may try to cover that behind the curtain of pseudo “people’s fury”.
There is nothing strange about this. The history knows that, from time to time, there is misunderstanding between politicians and artists, and those misunderstandings are not without their own reasons.
If the government policy was indeed impeccable, it could not so happen that a short artistic novel, however wrong and harmful it could be, would cause such a disturbance to the state’s ideological life.
Alongside with the need for economic reforms, the need for serious reforms in country’s ideological and political life is as urgent as ever, Mr. President!
It is not hard for me to understand that this work, which caused me much insult and hardship, created certain problems for the current Azerbaijan’s governing ideology. But I could not possibly agree that this work, in any way, discredits Azerbaijani people. In my opinion, the protagonists of the book: Saday Sadagli, Dr. Abbasov and Dr. Farzani are the bearers of high moral standards, who feel compassion towards all people, regardless of their national and religious identity. These are bright members of Azerbaijani people, its intelligencia. Those characters could not possible denigrate the people of Azerbaijan.
I’m 79 years old now, and my days are numbered: not by years, probably by months and days. Now, certainly, I worry more not about my own destiny, but destiny of my family, the plight of my sons who remain unemployed for my supposed “sins”. It would be naïve of me to expect that someone would show mercy and offer jobs to my children in the country of wolfish officials, who nod to every command from the top and differ from robots only by their endless greed and passion for bribes. That these stresses and hardship happened just because of a literary work seems a nightmare to me.
The last three years I live in the environment of psychological terror, and I daily witness the cruel violation of my basic human rights.
Even the doors of my country house are totally locked on me. It is not that I’m worried of disrespect from my countrymen: it is meaningless to be afraid of that, as I’m certain that the attitude of ordinary people towards me has not changed. Those doors are locked because in my small homeland, on each step I’m worried about possible ordered provocations.
As you probably know, “Stone Dreams” is not the first of my works published overseas. This book is a logical continuation of my body of work, and it’s not my fault that “Stone Dreams” only differ from my previous work in its theme. Also it’s not my fault that in other countries the book is judged by different criteria than in Azerbaijan.
It is not by accident that the publishing house that published “Stone Dreams” last year, also became interested in publishing my 1960s trilogy “People and Trees”. The book of my selected works, published in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2014, is also planned for publication in the United States. It should not escape attention that “Stone Dreams” is evaluated in many counties as masterly artful prose.
Mr. President, I have never been the trouble-maker who likes to create public scandals. Neither am I a culprit of such wide coverage of the airport “incident” in the international media.
My emotional address to you comes from my hope and belief that your word will have a decisive role in finding out the truth, establishing and punishing the real culprits of the said incident.
Reporters shouldn’t forget old techniques for checking information. Image: Alex Steffler/ Flickr /Creative Commons
Can you stand it up? Those five words were the ones I probably uttered more than any other when editing a daily newspaper. Excited reporters would be fed a diet of rumours: a member of parliament has left his wife, the chief constable has been suspended. These snippets would then be thrown into the daily news conference. And, with some exaggerated world-weariness, I would ask the key question. Can you stand it up? I never heard about half of the stories again.
Our advantage was that when a lead emerged at midday, we had nine hours to stand it up. If we couldn’t make it watertight we could give ourselves another 24 hours. In today’s digital world the pressure is on to push the button as soon any unsubstantiated tale flashes across our Twitter feeds. And the rush to publish means half-baked stories, outdated pictures and factual errors appear on websites that should know better. The irony is that verification has never been easier. My staff used to tread a regular path to our library to consult Dod’s Parliamentary Companion, Bartholomew’s Gazetteer and our own cuttings. Now you can check almost everything online. So why don’t we? As Spotlight, the Oscar-winning Hollywood film on investigative journalism shows, sourcing, checking and re-checking is how you nail whether a story stands up. In the world of 24-hour news and digital everything, those traditional techniques should not be forgotten. They include:
Be suspicious of everything. Take nothing at face-value. Check for vested interests. Trust no-one – even good contacts.
Your job is to confirm things. If you can’t, try harder. If you really can’t, don’t publish.
Always go to primary sources. Ask the chief constable if he is being suspended. Ask the authority chairman. If they won’t talk, find the committee members – all of them. When my neighbour was killed the local paper splashed it and got three facts wrong. Nobody from the paper had called the family (or me for that matter). Nobody bothered to make the effort. Shocking.
Follow the two-sources rule. Get everything verified by at least two trustworthy sources. Ideally on the record.
Use experts. There are universities, academics, specialists who will flag up credibility issues. Experts also know other experts.
Every story has a paper trail. There are still archives (try LexisNexis), court papers, Company House, Tracesmart. Has the same mistake been made before?
Ask yourself the key questions. What else can I look at? Who else can I talk to? Is it balanced? Did I write the headline first and make the story fit?
Make sure the readers understand what is opinion and what is fact. And that includes the headline.
Sweat the small stuff. Dates, spelling, names, figures, statistics. Don’t forget the who, what, why, where, when and how.
Evaluate the risk. There are times when with all the rigorous checking, a story might still only be 99%. If instinct and public interest tell you to publish – pass it to the editor. That is what he or she is paid for. And, with the other nine rules followed thoroughly, hopefully the editor won’t need to ask the key question.
Peter Sands is the former editor of UK daily newspaper the Northern Echo and runs media consultancy Sands Media Services. This story is an extract from a longer report by First Draft’s Alastair Reed about the importance of verification to stop the spread of hoaxes and propaganda online.
Winners of the 2016 Freedom of Expression Awards: from left, Farieha Aziz of Bolo Bhi (campaigning), Serge Bambara — aka “Smockey” (Music in Exile), Murad Subay (arts), Zaina Erhaim (journalism). GreatFire (digital activism), not pictured, is an anonymous collective. Photo: Sean Gallagher for Index on Censorship
Murad Subay
In 2011, artist Murad Subay took to the streets of Yemen’s capital, Sana’a to protest the country’s dysfunctional economy and institutionalised corruption, and to bring attention to a population besieged by conflict. Choosing street art as his medium of protest, he’s since run five campaigns to promote peace and art, and to discuss sensitive political and social issues in society. Unlike many street artists, all his painting is done in public, during the day, often with passers-by getting involved themselves.
Subay won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Arts.
Zaina Erhaim
A Syrian-native who was studying journalism in London when war broke out in Syria in 2013, Zaina Erhaim decided to return permanently to report and train citizen journalists in the war-ravaged country. Between the violence and deadly misogyny of IS and the bombing raids of Russian allies of Assad the danger of living in the region as a female reporter is immense. However, Erhaim has trained hundreds of journalists, including many women.
Erhaim won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Journalism.
Bolo Bhi
Bolo Bhi, which means “speak up” in Urdu, is a non-profit run by a powerful all-female team, fighting for internet access, digital security and privacy in Pakistan and around the world. Founded in 2012 by Sana Saleem and Farieha Aziz, they have since fought tirelessly to challenge Pakistan’s increasingly pervasive internet censorship.
Bolo Bhi won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Campaigning.
Smockey
Serge Bambara — aka Smockey, meaning “se moquer”, or “to mock” — is a hip-hop artist from Burkina Faso, who has had a marked impact on political and social developments there.
Smockey is the inaugural recipient of the Music in Exile Fund Fellowship.
GreatFire
GreatFire was set up in 2011 by three anonymous individuals to counter the “Great Firewall of China”, the systematic blocking by the Chinese government of any website deemed controversial, including any that touch on news, human rights, democracy or religion.
GreatFire is the winner of the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Digital Campaigning. We spoke to a GreatFire representative Charlie Smith, a pseudonym.
What does this award mean to GreatFire?
“It’s a great honour. Working in China, GreatFire has a pretty difficult job and we often feel we’re on our own. It means a lot to us to get this award. It’s like feedback; it’s very nice.”
What’s standing in your way?
“Our adversary is not just the Chinese authorities. There are dominant foreign internet companies that are putting obstacles in our way. They could be helping us more. It’s sometimes harder to deal with the major internet players than the Chinese authorities.”
What kinds of pressures does GreatFire face?
“Last year, in New York, we organised an art show and events. One of the events we organised was around feminism. Participants’ families were threatened at home in China. It makes it quite unsafe for people.”
Is the situation getting worse?
“Recently, there have been tons of arrests and detentions. People I speak to in other organisations agree. No one has ever seen anything like this. The Chinese authorities are trying to disrupt networks. More sites have been blocked. There’s more domestic censorship. It is getting worse.
“Telegram was blocked by China after realised that activist lawyers were using it to communicate with their clients. When it was blocked the lawyers were using WeChat to communicate with their clients. The authorities sat back and watched the connections. They arrested 100 people on a Friday night.”
What’s GreatFire’s biggest challenge?
Funding is our biggest challenge. We’re a victim of our own success. The more people use the app, the more it costs us. Our solution is based on collateral freedom. The more people are using it the more collateral freedom costs. China knows that there is an economic cost to shutting us down [because we are using systems that generate revenues for Chinese companies]. But it costs us money to run. It costs us 20 cents per user per month.
People can make donations through freebrowser.org.
It’s our hope that we don’t exist next year because the Chinese censorship system will be gone.
Films, like every kind of art, are often made purely for cinema’s sake – but sometimes they aren’t. Some of the most iconic recent films have actually played a major role in inspiring rights’ movements and protests around the world.
Ten Years, recipient of Hong Kong’s best film award on 3 April 2016, is just one of the latest examples of how cinema can side up with rights: films have often given protests momentum and a cultural reference.
Sometimes, directors have spoken out publicly in favour of protests; other times the films themselves have documented political abuses. In other cases, protesters and activists have given a film a new life, turning it into an icon for their protests on social media even against the directors’ original ideas.
Here are a few recent cases of popular films that have become symbols of rights’ movements around the world:
Directed by Chow Kwun-Wai with a $64,500 budget, Ten Years is a “political horror” set in a dystopian 2025 Hong Kong. In the five short stories told in the film, Chow Kwun-Wai warns against the effects that ten years of Beijing’s influence would have on Hong Kong: The erosion of human rights, the destruction of local culture and heavy censorship.
According to the South China Morning Post, Ten Years was not intended to be a political film, but the political content is explosive to the extent that some critics have dubbed it “the occupy central of cinema”.
China Digital Times reports that both the film and the awards ceremony are banned in China. On Sina Weibo, China’s leading social network, the searches “Ten Years + Film Awards” (十年＋金像) and “Ten Years + film” (十年＋电影) are blocked from results.
Birdman
Winner of a 2015 Oscar, Birdman’s plot is not about rights or protests: The film told the story of a popular actor’s struggles years after his success impersonating a superhero.
But Mexican director’s Alejandro González Iñárritu’s acceptance speech turned it into the symbol of a protest against Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
After asking for a respect and dignity for Mexican immigrants in the USA, Iñárritu said in his speech: “I want to dedicate this award for my fellow Mexicans, the ones who live in Mexico. I pray that we can find and build a government that we deserve.”
The speech came after the Mexican government declared the death of 43 students who went missing while organising a protest.
Iñárritu’s speech made Twitter erupt against Peña Nieto’s government under the hashtag #ElGobiernoQueMerecemos, “the government we deserve”.
Twitter user Guillermo Padilla said, “Now we are only missing a good ‘director’ in this country” – a play on words since “director” means both director and leader in Spanish.
The sci-fi blockbuster Hunger Games took a life of its own in Thailand, where student demonstrators turned the protagonist’s salute into a symbol of rebellion against the ruling junta.
In the film, set in a heavily oppressed country where every year young people are forced to fight to death in a nationally televised contest, protagonist Katniss Everdeen defies the central government and inspires a rebellion against totalitarian rule. Her three-finger salute becomes the symbol of the protest.
In Thailand, students started to use the three-finger salute as a symbol of rebellion after the military government took power with a coup on 22 May 2014 and clamped down on all forms of protest, censored the country’s news media, limited the right to public assembly and arrested critics and opponents. According to The New York Times, hundreds of academics, journalists and activists have been detained for up to a month.
The Guardian reported that social activist Sombat Boonngam-anong wrote on Facebook: “Raising three fingers has become a symbol in calling for fundamental political rights.”
Since then, using the salute in public in groups of more than five people has been prohibited through martial law.
V for Vendetta
V for Vendetta holds a special place among films about freedom of speech. In 2005, it was incredibly successful bringing the themes freedom of speech and rebellion against tyranny into the mainstream media debate.
In the film, a freedom fighter plots to overthrow the tyranny ruling on Britain in a dystopian future. The mask he always wears has the features of Guy Fawkes, an English Catholic who attempted to blow up the parliament on 5 November 1605.
The mask has since become an icon. According to The Economist, the mask has become a regular feature of many protests. Among others, it has been adopted by the Occupy movement and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
David Lloyd, author of the graphic novel on which the film is based, has called the mask a “convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny … It seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way.”
Suffragette
In 2015, the film historical drama Suffragette inspired a protest against the government’s cuts to women services in Britain.
The film shows the struggle for women’s rights that took place in the beginning of the 20th century, when Emmeline Pankhurst led an all-women fight to gain the right to vote.
Before the movie premiere in London’s Leicester Square, activists from the feminist group Sister Uncut broke away from the main crowd, and laid down on the red carpet.
According to The Independent, they chanted “It is our duty to fight for our freedom,” and held signs reading “Dead women can’t vote” and “2 women killed every week” to draw attention to domestic violence and cuts to women’s services.
One protester told The Independent: “We’re the modern suffragettes and domestic violence cuts are demonstrating that little has changed for us 97 years later.”
The case against Azerbaijani writer Akram Aylisli, who previously faced charges of hooliganism after being detained at Baku Haydar Aliyev International Airport on 30 March, has expanded to include charges of resisting the authorities with violence. Under article 315.1 of the criminal code, this is punishable by up to three years in prison.
The move came following an open letter Aylisli sent to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. In it, he points to the absurdity of the claim that a “78-year-old heart patient, a weak man” could assault a 35-year-old “stocky athlete”. The writer asked the president to intervene and remove the criminal case against him.
“Following [the letter], against all my expectations, my situation rapidly got worse,” Aylisli told Index on Censorship, referring to the new charges. “Also, a new vicious, libellous public campaign against me started in media,” he added.
In March, Aylisli was detained for 12 hours at the airport when he was due to participate in an Italian literary festival. He was accused of assaulting border guards and his travel documents were confiscated.
“Absurdly and illogically, this alleged incident of punching a border guard happened well after the plane departed and was later used by the border service as an explanation for denying the border crossing before the plane had left!” he told Index on Censorship.
Aylisli was once a popular writer in Azerbaijan until 2012 and the publication of his novel Stone Dreams, which tells of the massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan. His books have since been burned and threats have been made to cut off his ear. Index on Censorship has published one of his short stories, translated into English for the first time, its latest issue.
Order your copy of the spring issue of Index on Censorship here.
Saturday 23 April marks the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death. The Bard’s work has long been used to tackle difficult or controversial issues; issues that most often only received an audience due to the cloak of his respectability. To honour the occasion Index has put together a list of all things Shakespeare.
Shakespeare and his role in protest and dissent is the theme of the spring 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine: Staging Shakespearean Dissent; Plays That Protest, Provoke and Slip by the Censors. The issue features pieces that explore how the bard’s plays have been used to circumvent censorship and tackle difficult issues around the world; from Bollywood adaptions to Othello in apartheid-era South Africa and a ground-breaking recent performance of Romeo and Juliet between Kosovan and Serbian theatres, along with reports on theatre upsetting people in the USA, and interviews with directors around the world
Index on Censorship magazine editor Rachael Jolley introduces our Shakespeare special issue with her editorial piece, How Shakespeare’s plays smuggle protest. In this piece Jolley discusses how the work of “established” or “historic” playwrights gave actors the chance to tackle themes that would otherwise never be allowed.
Shakespeare was no stranger to censorship, from the Elizabethan to Jacobean police states. In this extract actor and theatre director Simon Callow looks at how his plays amused monarchs and dictators but also prompted their anger.
My Mate Shakespeare recasts the playwright as a brandy loving bingo addict, struggling in a war zone. The poem, which was published in the spring issue of Index on Censorship magazine, was written by poet Edin Suljic following a visit to his home country, Former Yugoslavia. The issue also features an interview with the poet, who fled to London in 1991 ahead of the country’s impending war, discussing his inspiration for the poem and his involvement with theatre group Bards Without Borders.
The theatre and censorship reading list is a compilation of articles from the magazine archive covering theatre censorship across the world. From the censorship of Romeo and Juliet in US high school textbooks to Janet Suzman’s controversial production of Othello in apartheid-era South Africa, to the banning of performances of Macbeth in actors’ homes in Czechoslovakia.
In an interview with magazine editor Rachael Jolley an award-winning cartoonist, Ben Jennings, discusses his design for the latest Index on Censorship magazine cover on the 400th anniversary of William Shakespeare’s death.
Hitler was a Shakespeare fan; Stalin feared Hamlet; Othello broke ground in apartheid-era South Africa; and Brazil’s current political crisis can be reflected by Julius Caesar. Across the world different Shakespearean plays have different significance and power. In our global guide to using Shakespeare to battle power some of our writers talk about some of the most controversial performances and their consequences.
Order your full-colour print copy of our Shakespeare magazine special here, or take out a digital subscription from anywhere in the world via Exact Editions (just £18* for the year). Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship fight for free expression worldwide.
*Will be charged at local exchange rate outside the UK.
Magazines are also on sale in bookshops, including at the BFI and MagCulture in London as well as on Amazon and iTunes. MagCulture will ship anywhere in the world.
As the OSCE Representative on Freedom of Media, I believe that the rights afforded to producers and consumers of traditional media equally apply to new media platforms as well.
That is why my office, an independent institution that is part of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, will continue to monitor developments across the 57-state region of the international organisation to alert governments to the dangers of unnecessary and excessive regulation of this great, new electronic frontier.
As part of these monitoring activities, my office recently published Media freedom on the Internet – an OSCE guidebook, written by Law Professor Yaman Akdeniz of Istanbul Bilgi University. Akdeniz, one of three winners of the 2016 Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression Prize in the legal service category, was also the author of the online publication Freedom of Expression on the Internet, a study of legal provisions and practices related to freedom of expression, the free flow of information and media pluralism on the internet in the OSCE participating States.
His latest publication provides a concise overview and update of these issues. It also reviews OSCE media freedom commitments, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Too many OSCE participating states block, filter and shut down websites and social media platforms. These restrictive measures, of varying magnitude, have the overarching goal of suppressing free expression online.
To me, the human rights framework strengthening free expression on the internet is clear. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Indeed, this declaration, adopted in 1948, has withstood the test of time, providing a framework for the protection of expression on the internet, as well as print media or free speech.
And in 2012, with the adoption of the landmark Resolution 20/8, the “promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet,” the UN Human Rights Council confirmed that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies online in exactly the same way as it does to traditional media and speech.
So what’s the issue?
Governmental authorities, politicians, law enforcement officials and, yes, free expression campaigners still tend to frame the issue of internet regulation as a debate without modification, pitting one essential value against another. In the case as it is postulated today that means trading off civil rights for national security. And vice versa.
Confusing the situation further are the calls from those who claim that governments and their regulatory authorities have absolutely no right to interfere with the transmission of ideas across new media platforms.
Governments do have a crucial role to play when it comes to regulating the internet and guaranteeing its freedom. This responsibility extends to the protection of minors from harmful content, combating racism and inhibiting content inciting hatred or violence and even fighting cyber crime. Conduct that constitutes a crime in the real world does not deserve even a patina of protection simply because new technologies are employed in its development and transmission.
But governments must also ensure that all stakeholders, including civil society, are consulted and involved in these efforts ensure that regulations designed to ensure the safety of the internet also prioritise and safeguard free expression. To put it simply, the less regulation the better. And regulations need to result in limited disruption to the creation and distribution of ideas and opinions and only for clearly defined and defensible reasons.
Professor Akdeniz’s new treatise provides a list of helpful do’s and don’ts for policymakers engaged in legislative drafting and regulatory enforcement. They would be wise to pay heed to the recommendations.
“Meydan TV and its staff have been ruthlessly targeted by Azerbaijani authorities. The charges invoked against Meydan TV are of similar nature to the charges that were used to send journalists and government critics to prison,” said Index senior advocacy officer Melody Patry. “This investigation confirms the government has no intention of changing its approach toward independent media and free expression in the country.”
Meydan TV reported today that Azerbaijani authorities launched a criminal probe against them for “alleged illegal practice and profit-making in an especially large amount, large-scale tax evasion and abuse of power resulting in falsification of elections and/or referendum results”.
The case against Meydan TV’s executives was filed by the General Prosecutor Office of Grave Crimes Investigation Department.
Harassment of Meydan TV and its journalists is not new. Meydan TV staff and their relatives have been facing extensive pressure ranging from threats to detention. 2013 Freedom of Expression Journalism Award-winning newspaper Azadliq was forced to stop printing and has teetered on the edge of bankruptcy as well.
Shakespeare’s plays often take on controversial themes of corruption, other throwing power and teenage love, yet these issues may not have received an audience had it not been for the cloak of the bard’s respectability.
Index on Censorship magazine editor Rachael Jolley will be joined by The Times’ David Aaronovitch, who is also the chair of Index on Censorship, actor and theatre director Simon Callow, and Director of the Dean’s Scholars in Shakespeare at The George Washington University’s Columbian College of Arts and Sciences Professor Alexa Huang, to discuss how Shakespeare slips by the censors.
When: Friday 3 June, 8:30pm Where: Good Energy Stage,Hay Festival, Hay-on-Wye. Tickets:£7
The Index Platform: What’s offensive?
What are the limits of free speech and civility? What is the nature of offence? And what earns “respect”? A panel will tackle these questions and more at the world renowned literature festival on Saturday 4 June.
Rachael Jolley, is again joined by David Aaronovitch, along with founder of the Everyday Sexism Project Laura Bates plus novelist and editor of The Good Immigrant anthology Nikesh Shukla and Index’s CEO Jodie Ginsberg.
When: Saturday 4 June, 8:30pm Where: Good Energy Stage, Hay Festival, Hay-on-Wye. Tickets: £7
A year after returning from exile, Honduran gay rights activist Donny Reyes still fears a murderous attack at any minute.
“I’ve been imprisoned on many occasions. I’ve suffered torture and sexual violence because of my activism, and I’ve survived many assassination attempts,” he said, in an interview with Index on Censorship.
Activists in Honduras must contend with a constant barrage of threats and, often fatal, attacks. Reyes, the coordinator of the Honduran lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy group Arcoíris (Rainbow), had spent 10 months abroad for his own safety, but felt an obligation to return to the frontline of the fight against discrimination.
“To be able to continue with my personal life and my work I have to be conscious that [death] could come at any moment,” he said. “The truth is it doesn’t worry me anymore. What worries me is that things won’t change.”
Dozens of LGBT Hondurans are murdered each year, with few of the killers brought to justice, according to figures from respected Honduran NGO Cattrachas. Journalists and activists who speak out are often attacked. One of these was Juan Carlos Cruz Andara who died after being stabbed 25 times by unknown assailants last June.
Arcoíris reported 15 security incidents against its members during the second half of 2015, including surveillance, harassment, arbitrary detentions, assaults, robberies, theft, threats, sexual assault and even murder. Other LGBT activists have experienced forced evictions, fraudulent charges, defamation, enforced disappearances and restrictions of right to assembly.
The activists consulted by Index all said that the level of homophobic violence exploded after the ousting of liberal President Manuel Zelaya in the military coup of 2009. The election of right-wing candidate Porfirio Lobo Sosa the following year coincided with the militarisation of Honduras, a rise in gang-related violence, and a clampdown on human rights.
The records from Cattrachas show that on average two LGBT people were murdered each year in the country from 1994 to 2008. After the 2009 coup that rate rocketed to an average 31 murders per year, according to figures from Arcoíris. In early 2016 there were signs the situation was escalating further with the murder of Paola Barraza, a member of Arcoiris’s group, on 24 January. In reality though it is impossible to know precisely how many people have been killed because of their sexuality because the vast majority of cases remain unsolved.
Erick Martínez Salgado, who volunteers with LGBT advocacy group Kukulcanhn, told Index that gay activists protested heavily against discrimination and the coup. He believes the government came to view his group as a threat to the traditional social order and started targeting them to “send a message” to other protesters.
One of the most prominent gay rights activists of the time, Walter Tróchez, was killed in a drive-by shooting in December 2009. Human rights groups noted that he had previously been kidnapped, beaten and threatened for demonstrating against the coup and advocating for gay rights. Four years later, Tróchez’s friend and fellow gay rights activist Germán Mendoza was arrested and charged with his murder.
Mendoza told Index he was held in deplorable conditions and repeatedly tortured in a bid to make him plead guilty. Eventually he was released after proving his innocence last year. Mendoza believes he was arrested because the government wanted to use him “as a scapegoat to wash their hands of the responsibility” for Tróchez’s death, which remains unsolved. The Honduran government did not respond to requests for comment.
Gang warfare was a massive contributor to Honduras status as the nation with the world’s highest murder rate in 2012, however the gay community’s main concern is not gangs, but the state security forces.
“The police constitute the primary perpetrator of violations of the rights of the LGBT community,” the Coalition Against Impunity, an alliance of 29 Honduran NGOs, warned last year, citing alleged “police policy of frequent threats, arbitrary arrests, harassment, sexual abuse, discrimination, torture and cruel or degrading treatment”.
As a result many vulnerable activists are reluctant to ask for protection, for fear that contact with the police would expose them to greater security risks or reprisals.
The journalists who document homophobic violence in Honduras also risk their lives. Dina Meza, an independent investigative reporter who has covered the issue extensively, was nominated for an Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award in 2014 for her journalism. Meza said the country’s mainstream media often portrays the LGBT community in a negative light.
Meza, who launched the independent news site Pasos de Animal Grande last year to draw attention to the hardships facing the most vulnerable sectors of society, said reporters who cover violence against the LGBT community are also targeted. She said not only do journalists get physically assaul-ted by the security forces and expelled from public events, but they are also targets of government-led smear campaigns.
“It’s extremely common here for them to link human rights defenders to drug trafficking and organised crime, in a bid to sow doubts in people’s minds about the work that we’re doing,” she explained. “If we speak out at an international level they say we’re trying to undermine Honduras, discourage investment and see the country burn.”
Peter Tatchell, director of the London-based LGBT campaigning group the Peter Tatchell Foundation, called for the world to pay more attention to the killings. He said: “This extensive, shocking mob violence against LGBT Hondurans is almost unreported in the rest of the world. The big international LGBT organisations tend to focus on better-known homophobic repression in countries like Egypt, Russia, Iran and Uganda. What’s happening in Honduras is many times worse. Is this neglect because it is a tiny country with few resources and no geo-political weight? The UN, Organisation of American States and foreign aid providers need to do more to press the Honduran government to crackdown on anti-LGBT hate crime and to educate the public on LGBT issues to combat prejudice.”
Meza and the activists interviewed by Index also believe that Catholic and Evangelical Christian groups have become increasingly influential in Honduran society. Reyes from Arcoíris described the state, the church and the mainstream media as a triumvirate which has fuelled “impunity, fundamentalism, machismo and misogyny” across the country, with disastrous consequences for the LGBT community.
“At home and at school are the first two places where we’re attacked and discriminated. We flee home at very young ages because the family is built on religious values. Our families punish us in a cruel manner and this has a terrible psychological impact,” Reyes said. “Our educational and employment opportunities are diminished every day. We can be sex workers or street vendors, or stay in the closet in the hope of getting a job, but if they find out about your sexual orientation you’ll almost certainly be fired.”
Despite the risks he and his fellow activists face, Reyes said the drastic need for change is what gives them the strength to keep fighting discrimination: “We need a Honduras that’s free from violence and homophobia. We believe it’s our responsibility to fight for this so the next generation have a space to live in a better world.”
This article is from the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine. Order your copy here, or take out a digital subscription via Exact Editions (free trial or £18 for the year). Copies are also available at the BFI and Serpentine Gallery (London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool), Home (Manchester) and on Amazon. Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship fight for free expression worldwide.
Un año tras volver del exilio, Danny Reyes, un activista homosexual hondureño aún teme ser asesinado en cualquier momento. “Yo estaba encarcelado en muchas ocasiones, he sido víctima de tortura y violencia sexual y todo a causa del activismo. En muchas ocasiones he sobrevivido persecuciones e intentos de sicarios,” dijo, en una entrevista con Index on Censorship.
Activistas en Honduras tienen que lidiar con constantes amenazas y atracos, a menudo fatales. Reyes, el coordinador del grupo activista para lesbianas, hombres homosexuales, bisexuales y transexuales Arcoíris, estuvo 10 meses en el extranjero por su propia seguridad pero se vio obligado a volver a estar a la vanguardia en la lucha contra la discriminación.
“Para poder continuar con mi vida personal y con mi trabajo, tengo que estar consciente de que eso [la muerte] puede ocurrir en cualquier momento.” Cada año se asesinan docenas de hondureños LGBT y muy pocos de los asesinatos son llevados ante la justicia, según las cifras del respetado ONG hondureño Cattrachas. Los periodistas y activistas que se pronuncian son atracados. Uno de ellos fue Juan Carlos Cruz Andara que murió tras ser apuñalado 25 veces por agresores desconocidos en junio del año pasado.
Arcoíris denunció 15 incidentes de seguridad contra sus miembros durante la segunda mitad de 2015, incluyendo vigilancia, acoso, detenciones arbitrarias, atracos, robos, amenazas, agresión sexual e incluso asesinato. Otros activistas LBGT han experimentado deshaucios, cargos falsos, difamación, desapariciones forzadas y restricciones del derecho de reunión.
Todos los activistas consultados por Index dijeron que el nivel de violencia homófoba aumentó desde la expulsión del presidente liberal Manuel Zelaya en el golpe militar de 2009.
La elección del candidato de la derecha Porfirio Lobo Sosa al año siguiente coincidió con la militarización de Honduras, un aumentó en el número de casos de violencia relacionada con las pandillas, y una restricción de los derechos humanos.
Los documentos de Cattrachas muestran que de media dos personas LGBT fueron asesinadas cada año en el país entre 1994 y 2008. Tras el golpe de 2009 el número ha subido vertiginosamente a una media de 31 asesinatos al año, según las cifras de Arcoíris. A principios de 2016 había indicaciones de que se intensificaba más la situación con el asesinato de Paola Barraza, un miembro de Arcoíris, el 24 enero. En realidad es muy difícil conocer exactamente cuántas personas han perdido la vida a causa de su sexualidad porque la gran mayoría de los casos siguen sin resolverse.
Eric Martínez Salgado, que trabaja como voluntario con el grupo activista LGBT Kukulcanhn, contó a Index que los activistas homosexuales protestaron firmemente contra la discriminación y el golpe de estado. Cree que el gobierno consideraba su grupo como una amenaza al orden social tradicional y que empezó a amenazarles para “enviar un mensaje” a otros manifestantes.
Uno de las figuras más prominentes del activismo homosexual de todos los tiempos, Walter Tróchez, fue asesinado en un tiroteo desde un coche en 2009. Los grupos de derechos humanos notaron que había sido secuestrado anteriormente, batido y amenazado por manifestarse contra el golpe de estado y abogar por derechos para homosexuales. Cuatro años más tarde, un amigo de Tróchez y también activista homosexual Germán Mendoza fue detenido y acusado de su asesinato.
Mendoza contó a Index que le guardaban en condiciones deplorables y fue torturado repetidas veces. Finalmente lo soltaron tras probar su inocencia el año pasado. Mendoza cree que fue detenido porque el gobierno quería utilizarlo “como cabeza de turco para lavarse las manos de la responsabilidad” de la muerte de Tróchez, que sigue sin resolverse. El gobierno hondureño no respondió cuando se le pidió un comentario respecto al tema.
Las guerras de las pandillas fueron un enorme factor que influyeron en el estatus de Honduras como el país con el mayor número de asesinatos en 2012, sin embargo la principal preocupación de la comunidad homosexual no son las pandillas sino el estado de las fuerzas de seguridad.
“La policía y otros agentes se constituyen en el principal perpetrador de violaciones a los derechos de la comunidad LGBT,” advirtió el año pasado la Coalición contra la Impunidad, un pacto entre 29 ONG hondureños, citando presunta “política de policía de frecuentes amenazas, detenciones arbitrarias, acoso, agresión sexual, discriminación, tortura y tratamiento cruel o degradante.”
Como resultado muchos activistas vulnerables son reacios a pedir protección, por miedo a que el contacto con la policía pueda generar mayores riesgos en la seguridad o represalias. Los periodistas que escriben sobre la violencia homofóbica en Honduras también arriesgan la vida. Dina Menza, una investigadora independiente que ha escrito mucho sobre el tema fue nominada a los premios Libertad de Expresión en 2014 otorgado por Index on Censorship por su trabajo. Meza dijo que los medios principales del país retratan la comunidad LGBT bajo una luz negativa.
Meza, que lanzó el sitio de noticias Pasos de Animal Grande el año pasado para llamar la atención sobre las dificultades que sufren los sectores más vulnerables de la sociedad, dijo que periodistas que escriben sobre la violencia contra la comunidad LGBT también han sido objeto de persecuciones. Dijo que los periodistas no sólo son agredidos físicamente por las fuerzas de seguridad y echados de eventos públicos sino son también objeto de campañas de desprestigio gubernamentales.
“Aquí el vincularnos como defensores de derechos humanos con el crimen organizado y el narcotráfico, eso es lo más normal para desprestigiar nuestra labor y para sembrar la duda en la gente sobre el trabajo que estamos haciendo,” Meza explicó. “Si vamos a nivel internacional y hablamos, dicen que tenemos una campaña en contra del estado de Honduras y que promovemos que no venga inversión, que queremos incendiar el país.”
Peter Tatchell, director del grupo activista LGBT the Peter Tatchell Foundation en Londres, pide que el mundo preste atención a los asesinatos. Dijo: “Esta violencia, extendida y escandalosa contra la comunidad LGBT hondureña apenas se reporta en el resto del mundo. Las grandes organizaciones LGBT tienden a centrase en casos de homofobia más conocidos como los de Egipto, Irán y Uganda. Lo que está pasando en Honduras es mucho peor. ¿Esta negligencia es porque es un país pequeño con pocos recursos y poco peso geopolítico? La ONG, Organización de Estados Americanos y proveedores de ayuda internacional deben hacer más para presionar al gobierno hondureño a erradicar crímenes contra la comunidad LGBT y sensibilizar al público sobre el tema a fin de combatir los prejuicios”.
Meza y los activistas entrevistados por Index también sostienen que los grupos católicos y evangélicos tienen cada vez más influencia en la sociedad hondureña. Reyes de Arcoíris ha descrito el estado, la iglesia y los medios principales como un triunvirato que ha alimentado “la impunidad, el fundamentalismo, el machismo y la misoginia” en todo el país con consecuencias desastrosas para la comunidad LGBT.
“La familia y la escuela son los primeros lugares donde nos violentan y nos discriminan. Salimos de casa a muy tempranas edades, huyendo porque la familia está construida con valores religiosos. Nos castigan de una forma cruel y la afectación psicológica es terrible,” dijo Reyes. “Las oportunidades que tenemos de trabajo o educación cada día son menos. Podemos ser trabajadores sexuales o comerciantes vendiendo en la calle o meternos en el closet para poder conseguir un trabajo, pero si se enteran de nuestra orientación sexual es casi seguro que nos despiden.”
A pesar de los riesgos a los que se enfrentan tanto él como sus amigos, Reyes dijo que la necesidad de un cambio drástico es lo que le da la fuerza para seguir luchando contra la discriminación: “Necesitamos encontrar un Honduras que esté libre de violencia y homofobia. Creemos que es nuestra responsabilidad luchar por eso, para que las próximas generaciones tengan un espacio donde vivir en un mundo mejor.”
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:
As the OSCE Representative on Freedom of Media, I believe that the rights afforded to producers and consumers of traditional media equally apply to new media platforms as well.
Join Index on Censorship at this year’s Hay Festival for a weekend of discussions about free speech, offence, Shakespeare and protest.
