08 Feb 18 | Global Journalist (Arabic), Journalism Toolbox Arabic
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=””][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
هذه المقالة جزء من سلسلة “مشروع المنفى” التي تقوده غلوبال جورناليست، شريكة “اندكس أون سنسرشب”، التي تنشر مقابلات مع صحفيين منفيين من جميع أنحاء العالم.
اعتقدت كسينيا كيريلوفا أن إقامتها في الولايات المتحدة ستكون مؤقتة.
عندما غادرت مسقط رأسها في ايكاترينبرغ ، بروسيا في ربيع عام ٢٠١٤ للانتقال إلى سياتل مع زوجها ، وهو مهندس برمجيات أوكراني ، كانت لديها خبرة قليلة في الشؤون الدولية.
لكن كل ذلك تغير مع بدء روسيا في تقديم الدعم العلني للانفصاليين في شرق أوكرانيا ، وفي نهاية المطاف غزت وضمت شبه جزيرة القرم. وقد فوجئت كيريلوفا ، التي كانت تعمل في السابق لدى نوفايا غازيتا ، وهي صحيفة روسية مستقلة معروفة بتحقيقاتها حول الفساد وانتقاد الكرملين، بما حدث. كان لديها العديد من الأصدقاء في أوكرانيا ، وكانت مصممة على بذل كل ما في وسعها لمواجهة ما اعتبرته دعاية روسية لتغذية الحرب.
بدأت الكتابة عن الدعاية الروسية لموقع “نوفي ريجيون”. غالبا ما كان هذا الموقع ينتقد الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين ، وقد تم تأسيسه من قبل صديقها ، الصحفي الروسي الكسندر شيتينين. أسس شيتينين هذا الموقع الأخباري في التسعينيات ، لكنه اضطر إلى ترك الشركة تحت ضغط من الحكومة الروسية في عام ٢٠١٤. ثم أعاد بعد ذلك إطلاق الموقع في أوكرانيا.
لم تكن كيريلوفا على غير دراية بالصعوبات التي يواجها الصحفيون الذين يقومون بتحدي الحكومة الروسية. قُتل ما لا يقل عن ٥٨ صحفياً في روسيا منذ عام ١٩٩٣ ، وفقاً للجنة حماية الصحفيين. ويشمل ذلك العديد من صحفيي نوفايا غازيتا الذين قُتلوا أو ماتوا في ظروف غامضة منذ عام ٢٠٠٠.
كانت كيريلوفا تشعر بالأمان في الولايات المتحدة. ولكن في أغسطس / آب ٢٠١٦ ، عثر على شيتينين ، الذي كان قد وصف بوتين بـ “عدوه الشخصي” ، ميتًا مصابًا برصاصة في رأسه في شقته في كييف. تم العثور على رسالة انتحار بالقرب من جثة شيتينين. لا تعتقد كيريلوفا أن شيتينين قد قتل نفسه ، ولقد فتحت السلطات الأوكرانية تحقيقاً في جريمة القتل.
بعد وقت قصير من وفاة شيتينين ، عثرت كيريلوفا على موقع مؤيد لروسيا على الإنترنت يحتوي على أسماء “متطرفين مناهضين لروسيا”. كان اسمها على القائمة. اذن يبدو أن العودة إلى روسيا ، التي كانت خطرة أصلاً ، قد تكون مميتة لها.
تعيش كيريلوفا ، ٣٣ عاما ، اليوم في أوكلاند ، كاليفورنيا ، وهي تشارك بانتظام في النسخة الروسية من راديو أوروبا الحرة / راديو ليبرتي المدعومة من قبل الولايات المتحدة بالإضافة إلى محطة تي سي إتش الأوكرانية. وتحدثت مع جيون تشوي من غلوبال جورناليست عن وفاة زميلها وجهودها لمواجهة الدعاية في وسائل الإعلام الروسية.
غلوبال جورناليست: كيف أثر الصراع بين روسيا وأوكرانيا عليك؟
كيريلوفا: بدأت كل مشاكلي في روسيا بسبب نشاطي في أمريكا. قبل أن آتي إلى هنا ، عملت لسنوات عديدة … لدى نوفايا غازيتا في فرع الأورال. عشت في مسقط رأسي ايكاترينبرغ. جئت إلى أمريكا عن طريق المصادفة. زوجي ، وهو مواطن من أوكرانيا ، كان لديه عقد عمل مؤقت في الولايات المتحدة. وفي الوقت نفسه ، بدأت الحرب الروسية والأوكرانية في مارس ٢٠١٤.
لقد شكّل ذلك الحدث صدمة حقيقية بالنسبة لي. اعتبرت أنه من واجبي أن أفعل شيئًا ما ، لذا بدأت في تحليل الدعاية الروسية ومخاوف الروس وعقليتهم. كانت الأهمية الأساسية بالنسبة لي هي أن هذه المعلومات قد تساعد في منع الاستفزازات الروسية الجديدة حول العالم.
غلوبال جورناليست: كيف تغيرت الصحافة في روسيا في السنوات الأخيرة؟
كيريلوفا: عندما كنت في روسيا ، كنت أغطي بعض الموضوعات الخطيرة. قبل الحرب ، كانت [وسائل الإعلام] الروسية تدافع عن نظام بوتين ، ولكن ليس بشراسة كما هو الوضع الآن. لم يكن من الصعب التحدث عن الحكومة. كان يمكننا [كان يمكن للمراسلين أن يكتبوا عن] الفساد وأن نقول الحقيقة حول المجالات السياسية والاجتماعية وغيرها. كانت سلطات الحكم المحلي مستقلة عن الحكومة الفيدرالية.
في عام ٢٠١٠ ، تغيرت الحكومة في منطقتي. لقد أنشأوا نظامًا موحّدًا وأضافوا منصبا مثل مراقب المدينة الذي عينته الحكومة الفيدرالية. أصبح من المستحيل تغطية أي مشاكل اجتماعية ، لأن كل المشاكل كان لها علاقة بالمسؤولين الحكوميين. أصبح من المستحيل نشر أي مقالات انتقادية.
غلوبال جورناليست : متى سمعت لأول مرة أن الحكومة الروسية كانت تستهدفك انت وألكسندر؟
كيريلوفا: حذرني صديقي المقرب ألكسندر شيتينين من أن كلينا سوف يتهم بالخيانة. كان ذلك في ربيع عام ٢٠١٥. وكانت السلطات الروسية تلقي تلك التهمة حتى على الأشخاص العاديين الذين لم يكن لديهم أي علاقة مع أسرار الدولة ، بمن فيهم ربات البيوت البسيطات والبائعات. أعلنت المحكمة العليا الروسية [نوفا ريجيون] كموقع متطرف فقط لأنه كانت يعمل من أوكرانيا وكان يعارض العدوان الروسي. وهكذا ، أصبحنا رسميا صحفيين نعمل مع مصدر “متطرف”.
باشرت السلطات الروسية بإجراءات جنائية ضد أصدقائي ، والمعارضين الروس من ايكاترينبرغ ، بما في ذلك بسبب تدوينات بريئة على الشبكات الاجتماعية أدانت الحرب. وهكذا ، فهمنا أن قضية جنائية كانت تنتظرنا بالفعل في روسيا.
غلوبال جورناليست: كيف كان شعورك عندما علمت أن ألكسندر قد مات؟
كيريلوفا: كان ألكساندر قد قرر اتباع نفس الخيار الذي اتبعته أنا – أي دعم أوكرانيا كصحفي روسي. قبل وفاته ، فقد معظم أعماله ، ولم يتمكن من زيارة عائلته وأطفاله البالغين في روسيا. حارب الدعاية الروسية وعملاء النفوذ الروسي في أوكرانيا.
لا أعتقد أنه كان انتحارًا. فلقد توفي بعد شهر من اغتيال صحفي معارض روسي آخر في كييف ، بافيل شيريميت. بعد وفاة ألكسندر الغريبة في كييف ، وجدت مقالاً على موقع رسمي للدعاية الروسية تم إزالته فيما بعد. قالت المقالة إن جميع الصحفيين الروس الذين يدعمون أوكرانيا قد يقتلون. كان اسمي في تلك القائمة.
غلوبال جورناليست: ما هو الجزء الأكثر صعوبة في العيش في المنفى في الولايات المتحدة؟
كيريلوفا: لفترة طويلة ، لم يكن لدي حتى تصريح عمل في الولايات المتحدة. كنت أنتظر اللجوء لمدة عامين ، حتى قبل مقتل ألكسندر. كنت أعمل لمدة عامين كمتطوعة ، دون أي راتب. الآن كل شيء على ما يرام ، فلدي تصريح عمل.
لقد فقدت كل شيء بسبب قراري – لا أقصد قرار المجيء إلى هنا ، ولكن القرار في الانخراط في هذا العمل. لكن لم يكن لدي أي أوهام حول هذا الموضوع.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Feb 18 | Global Journalist, Media Freedom, News and features, Russia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”97735″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Kseniya Kirillova thought her stay in the U.S. would be only temporary.
When she left her hometown of Ekaterinburg, Russia in the spring of 2014 to move to Seattle with her husband, a Ukrainian software engineer, she had little experience in international affairs.
But all that changed as Russia began to openly back separatists in eastern Ukraine, and eventually invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Kirillova, who had previously worked for Novaya Gazeta, an independent Russian newspaper known for its investigations of corruption and criticism of the Kremlin, was taken aback. She had many friends in Ukraine, and was determined to do all she could to counter what she saw as Russian propaganda that was feeding the war effort.
She began writing about Russian propaganda for the website Novy Region. Often critical of President Vladimir Putin, the site had been founded by a friend, Russian journalist Alexander Shchetinin. Shchetinin had founded the news outlet in the 1990s but was forced to leave the company under pressure from the Russian government in 2014. He later relaunched the site in Ukraine.
Kirillova wasn’t unfamiliar with the difficulties reporters face in challenging the Russian government. At least 58 journalists have been killed in Russia since 1993, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. That includes several Novaya Gazeta journalists who were killed or died in mysterious circumstances since 2000.
Living in the U.S., was safe. But in August 2016, Shchetinin, who had called Putin his “personal enemy,” was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head in his apartment in Kiev. A suicide note was found near Shchetinin’s body. Kirillova doesn’t believe Shchetinin killed himself, and Ukrainian authorities opened a murder investigation.
Soon after Shchetinin’s death, Kirillova found a pro-Russia site online listing the names of “anti-Russia extremists.” Her name was on the list. A return to Russia, already dangerous, now seemed potentially deadly.
Today Kirillova, 33, lives in Oakland, Calif. and is a contributor to the Russian service of U.S.-backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as well as the Ukrainian broadcaster TCH. She spoke with Global Journalist’s Jiwon Choi about the death of her collaborator and her efforts to counter propaganda in Russian media.
Global Journalist: How has the conflict between Russia and Ukraine affected you?
Kirillova: All my problems in Russia started because of my activity in America. Before I came here, I worked for several years…for Novaya Gazeta in the Urals branch. I lived in my hometown Ekaterinburg. I came to America accidentally. My husband, who is a citizen of Ukraine, he had a temporary work contract in the U.S. At the same time, the Russian and Ukrainian war began [in] March 2014.
It was a real shock for me. I considered it my duty to do something, so I began to analyze Russian propaganda, [their] fears and their mentality. The main importance for me was if this information could prevent new Russian provocations around the world.
GJ: How has journalism in Russia changed in recent years?
Kirillova: When I was in Russia, I sometimes covered some dangerous topics. Before the war, Russian [media] was defending Putin’s regime, but not as aggressively as it is now. It wasn’t so hard to talk about the government. We [reporters could write about] corruption and tell the truth about political, social and other spheres. Local government authorities were independent from the federal.
In 2010, the government changed in my region. They created a united power system and added a position like a city monitor, who was appointed by the federal government. It became impossible to cover any social problems, because any problems have something to do with government officials. It became impossible to publish any critical articles.
GJ: When did you first hear that the Russian government was targeting you and Alexander?
Kirillova: My close friend Alexander Shchetinin warned me that both of us would be charged with state treason. It was in in the spring of 2015. Russian authorities were accusing even ordinary people who didn’t have any access to state secrets, including simple housewives and saleswomen. The Russian Supreme Court recognized [Nova Region] as an extremist site only because it was in Ukraine and was opposed to Russian aggression. Thus, we officially became journalists of an “extremist” resource.
The Russian authorities instituted criminal proceedings against my friends, Russian dissidents from Ekaterinburg, even for innocent posts in social networks condemning the war. Thus, we already understood that a criminal case was waiting for us in Russia.
Russian journalist Alexander Shchetinin, pictured in front of the former headquarters of the KGB in Moscow with a stuffed bear.
GJ: How did you feel when you learned that Alexander was dead?
Kirillova: Alexander was someone who made the same choice as me – supporting Ukraine as a Russian journalist. Before his death, he lost most of his business, couldn’t visit his family and his adult children in Russia. He fought against Russian propaganda and agents of Russian influence in Ukraine.
I don’t believe that it was a suicide. He died a month after the murder of another Russian opposition journalist in Kiev, Pavel Sheremet. After the strange death of Alexander in Kiev, I found an article on an official Russian propaganda website which was later removed. It said that all Russian journalists who support Ukraine might be killed. My name was on the list.
GJ: What is the most difficult part of living in exile in the United States?
Kirillova: For a long time, I didn’t even have a work permit in the U.S. I was waiting for asylum [for] two years, even before the murder of Alexander. I was working for two years as a volunteer, without any payment. Now everything is fine, I have a work permit.
I lost everything because of my decision–I don’t mean the decision to come here, but the decision to start this work. But I never had illusions about this topic. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/tOxGaGKy6fo”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”6″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”2″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1516813685289-3cea7194-74a5-4″ taxonomies=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
06 Feb 18 | About Index, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The UK Prime Minister’s proposals for possible new laws to stop “intimidation” against politicians have the potential to prevent legal protests and free speech that are at the core of our democracy, says Index on Censorship. One hundred years after the suffragette demonstrations won the right for women to have the vote for the first time, a law that potentially silences angry voices calling for change would be a retrograde step.
“No one should be threatened with violence, or subjected to violence, for doing their job,” said Index chief executive Jodie Ginsberg. “However, the UK already has a host of laws dealing with harassment of individuals both off and online that cover the kind of abuse politicians receive on social media and elsewhere. A loosely defined offence of ‘intimidation’ could cover a raft of perfectly legitimate criticism of political candidates and politicians – including public protest.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Feb 18 | Global Journalist (Arabic), Journalism Toolbox Arabic
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=””][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
يدرك تشارلز أتانغانا مثل أي شخص تحديات العمل الصحفي في الكاميرون. في تسعينات
القرن الماضي وأوائل العقد الأول من القرن الحالي ، كان أتانغانا مراسلاً استقصائياً يغطي
القضايا الاقتصادية مع صحيفة "لا سينتينيل" (أغلقت منذ ذلك الحين)، وكذلك صحيفة لو
ميساجير ، أول صحيفة مستقلة في الكاميرون ، وكثيراً ما كان يشارك في تقارير حول سوء
الإدارة والفساد في هذه الدولة الواقعة في أفريقيا الوسطى.
هناك الكثير من القضايا التي تستحق التغطية في الكاميرون ، التي تحتل المرتبة ١٤٥ من بين
١٧٦ دولة على مؤشر الفساد التي تصدره منظمة الشفافية الدولية. احتل تقرير له عن انعدام
الشفافية في عائدات النفط الحكومية الصفحات الأولى لمدة ثلاثة أيام متتالية، فيما كشف تقرير
آخر له عن الرشوة في عملية القبول بالمدارس وتورط وزير التعليم آنذاك.
لهذا السبب، لم ترحب بتقاريره حكومة الرئيس بول بيا ، الذي حكم البلاد منذ عام ١٩٨٢
والذي يسجن عادة الصحفيين المنتقدين لحكومته. في عام ٢٠٠٤ ، ساهم أتانغانا في تنظيم
مؤتمر صحفي للمجلس الوطني للكاميرونيين الجنوبيين، وهي مجموعة تدعم استقلال الأقلية
الناطقة باللغة الإنجليزية في الكاميرون في جنوب غرب البلاد. خلال الفعالية ، تم اختطاف
أتانغانا واقتياده إلى مركز احتجاز عسكري في دوالا ، أكبر مدن الكاميرون ، حيث تعرض
للضرب والتعذيب على يد خاطفيه الذين أرادوا معرفة هوية مصادره داخل الحكومة.
يقول أتانغانا إنه من خلال طريقة استجوابه ، يمكنه أن يستنتج أن أمر احتجازه كان قد أتى من
وزير التعليم جوزيف أوونا ، وهو موالٍ للرئيس بيا منذ فترة طويلة ، وقد أصبح رئيسًا لاتحاد
كرة القدم في الكاميرون لاحقا. لم يرد أوونا على طلباتنا للتعليق. ونفى ابنه ، ماثياس إريك
أوونا نغوييني ، عبر فيسبوك ، نفى تورط والده في اعتقال أتانغانا ، زاعما أن بعض
الصحفيين "يريدون تبرير نفيهم وسعيهم للحصول على اللجوء السياسي باستعمال المعلومات
الزائفة".
تمكن أتانغانا من الفرار من السجن بمساعدة أقاربه، بعد أن أدرك أنه لم يعد بإمكانه البقاء في
أمان في الكاميرون. وفي نهاية المطاف شق طريقه إلى المملكة المتحدة ، حيث تم منحه
اللجوء بعد كفاح طويل ومضني.
يعيش أتانغانا اليوم في مدينة غلاسكو بإسكتلندا ، حيث يعمل صحافيًا حرًا. تحدث إلى آيلان
بيتون من غلوبال جورناليست حول تعرضه للتعذيب والفرار من الكاميرون والتحدي المتمثل
في الحصول على اللجوء في المملكة المتحدة. أدناه النسخة المحررة من نص المقابلة:
غلوبال جورناليست: ما الذي جذبك في البداية إلى العمل الصحافي؟
أتانغانا: منذ سن السادسة ، كان لدينا نشاط في المدرسة لتشجيع أولئك منا الذين يمكنهم قراءة
الصحف لقص مقالة تهمنا في عطلة نهاية الأسبوع ثم الصاقها على الجدار. كان معلمنا يطلق
على هذا اسم "مجلة الجدار".
[في الجامعة] انضممت إلى النادي الصحفي. كنا في بعض الأحيان نستقبل الصحفيين الذين
عملوا في الاذاعة للدخول والتحدث إلينا ومحاولة إعطائنا رؤوس الأقلام حول أسس العمل
الصحافي.
لم أكن مهتمًا للغاية بالعمل في ذلك الوقت لأن هؤلاء الأشخاص الذين جاءوا لزيارة الكلية
وشرحوا ما هي الصحافة … لم يكونوا أثرياء. ملابسهم – لم تكن مثيرة للإعجاب. لكن رأيي
تغير بعد أن نضجت. كنت أرى أحيانا بعض الصحفيين يتجولون وهم يحملون كاميرا. بدا
الأمر فجأة مثيرًا لي.
غلوبال جورناليست: كيف انتهى بك المطاف إلى التركيز على التحقيقات الاقتصادية؟
أتانغانا: عندما بدأت مسيرتي المهنية في الصحافة ، لم يكن أحد مهتمًا بالقضايا الاقتصادية.
كلما رأيت مثل هذه التقارير، كانت في العادة مجرد بيانات صحفية من الحكومة حول تمويلات
صندوق النقد الدولي … لم يكن هناك أي شخص يركز على التحقيق ومحاولة معرفة ما يجري
وراء الأرقام.
كنت قد تلقيت تدريبًا في شؤون الشركات من البنك الدولي ، حيث كنت أعمل. لذا قررنا أنا
وزملائي من وسائل الإعلام الرسمية إنشاء مجموعة للصحفيين الاقتصاديين.
كنا قد سئمنا من رؤية إعلانات عن مشاريع من الحكومة تقول أشياء مثل: "سنبني ٦٠٠ فصل
دراسي في المقاطعات في جميع أنحاء الكاميرون." فبمجرد الحصول على الأموال ثم انجاز
الأعمال، لم يكن هناك أحد يذهب الى نواحي البلاد لتفقدها – لأنك إذا فعلت ذلك ، فستجد أنه
ربما تم بناء خمسة أو عشرة فقط ، فيما قد تم إنفاق المال كله.
غلوبال جورناليست: كيف تصف الضغوط التي يواجهها الصحفيون في الكاميرون؟
أتانغانا: عندما يكتب الصحفي منتقدا شخصيات حكومية ، قد يتم الاتصال بهم أثناء خروجهم
الى البارات (مثلا) ويعرض عليهم رشوة.
قد يطلبون منك تخفيف حدة كتاباتك وربما وضع بعض اللمسات التجميلية حول وزير حكومي
أو شخص آخر. الصحفي في الكاميرون لا يجني الكثير من المال ، وبالتالي يمكن أن يكون
ذلك وسيلة فعالة [لإسكاتهم]. لكن في أوقات أخرى هناك تهديدات أو ضرب.
غلوبال جورناليست : على ماذا كنت تعمل عندما جذبت انتباه الحكومة؟
أتانغانا: في احد المرات، نشرت مقالة لي على الصفحة الأولى لمدة ثلاثة أيام. كانت تقرير عن
قضية تتعلق بشفافية الحكومة وعائداتها النفطية وكيف أن البنك الدولي أجبرهم أن بعدوا بأن
يوضحوا كيفية تحرك هذه الأموال مقابل الحصول على قرض كبير.
القضية كانت أنه للمرة الأولى ، تم اجبار الحكومة على الرضوخ. كان البنك الدولي قد قال إننا
سنعطيكم المال، لكن فقط إذا نشرت الحكومة الأرقام المتعلقة بتدفق النفط.
عملت أيضاً على تقرير أظهر كيف أن بعض المسؤولين في الجامعات كانوا يأخذون رشاوى
من الآباء لكي يقبلوا أولادهم. بعض هؤلاء الناس كانوا قريبين من وزير التعليم.
غلوبال جورناليست: ماذا كنت تفعل في اليوم الذي تم اعتقالك؟
أتانغانا: كنت قد قدّمت المتحدثين في مؤتمر قبل أن يتم استدعائي الى الخارج. لقد واجهني
ثلاثة رجال كانوا متنكرين في هيئة صحفيين ، لكن اتضح أنهم لم يكونوا كذلك. قال لي أحدهم:
"تشارلز ، لقد تابعنا كتاباتك ، ورأينا مداخلاتك على التلفزيون."
ثم بدأوا يضربونني. قاموا في الأول بصفع خدّي الأيسر ثمّ الايمن قبل أن يركلوني
ويطرحوني على الأرض.
تم نقلي إلى زنزانة الشرطة العسكرية في دوالا ، حيث كانوا يحتجزون عادة الأشخاص
الخطيرين ، لذا أفترض أن ذلك جعلني أحدهم. بقيت هناك لبضعة أسابيع ولم يكن أحد يعرف
أين ذهبت. فهمت من الأسئلة التي كانوا يطرحونها أن وزير التعليم هو الذي أمر باعتقالي.
غلوبال جورناليست ماذا اكانوا يريدون منك؟
أتانغانا: تم سؤالي عن هوية مصادري. كان هذا هو الشيء الرئيسي الذي أرادوا معرفته: من
في الحكومة كان يعطيني معلوماتي. كانت لدي اتصالات جيدة للغاية في اللجان الحكومية –
التعليم والصحة والمالية وفي الجيش – وكان من الواضح لهم من خلال مقالاتي أن شخصًا ما
كان يعطيني معلومات سرية.
كانت الليلة الثانية مؤلمة لأنني تعرضت للضرب المبرح. أتذكر ، في الليلة الأولى أنني قد
نمت على الأرض في ملابسي الداخلية ولكن في الليلة الثانية جعلوني أنام دون ملابسي
الداخلية. كانوا يستخدمون أسلاك ربطوها حول أعضائي التناسلية ليحاولوا الضغط عليّ
للكشف عن مصادري.
تعلمت دائما حماية مصادري. عندما كنت طالبًا ، أتت صحفية من واشنطن للتحدث معنا.
أخبرتنا أنه يجب علينا حماية مصادرنا بأي ثمن. كان الخيار هو: كشف مصادري وتدمير
سمعتي أو الموت من أجل حمايتها.
غلوبال جورناليست: كيف هربت إذن ؟
أتانغانا: بعد أسبوعين أدركت أنني كنت أواجه الموت. كان من السهل عليهم أن يقتلوني – لم
يكن أحد يعرف أين كنت محتجزاً. كانوا يطعمونني بشكل سيء لدرجة أنني أصبت بالإسهال ،
لذا طلبت منهم أن يأخذوني إلى المستشفى. هناك ، التقيت بشخص كان على وشك أن يطلق
سراحه وكان معه هاتف. تمكنت من إخبار هذا الرجل أن يوصل رسالة إلى أبي. كنت مع
شخص من الشرطة العسكرية ، لكنه لم يكن يعرف من أنا أو لماذا كنت هناك ، لذا وعدته
بالمال. سمح لي بالخروج إلى موقف السيارات [حيث كان والدي ينتظر]. أختي لديها صديق
يسافر إلى فرنسا للعمل وتمكنت من تنظيم الذهاب في رحلة معه.
غلوبال جورناليست: ما مدى صعوبة الحصول على اللجوء في المملكة المتحدة؟
أتانغانا: كانت السنوات القليلة الأولى صعبة للغاية. استغرق الأمر مني بضعة أشهر للتعافي
من المحنة وبدأت أعود إلى حياة طبيعية.
أشعر أن التمييز في نظام اللجوء في المملكة المتحدة قوي. أنت تقضي كل وقتك في التحدث
إلى أشخاص في المنظمات حول بلد لم يزره أحد من الموظفين. كان ذلك صعبا جدا.
تم توقيفي في عام ٢٠٠٨ [في المملكة المتحدة] لأنه ظهر أن طلب اللجوء الخاص بي قد تم
رفضه. لم يصدقوا أنني صحافي حقيقي أو أنني كنت تحت التهديد.
تحدثنا إلى زميل قديم من البنك الدولي ، وبعث بيانا. فعل زميل من لو ميساجير الشيء نفسه.
ساعد الاتحاد الوطني للصحفيين في اسكتلندا كثيراً ، كما كتبت لجنة حماية الصحفيين في
الولايات المتحدة عني وقدمت بيانا حول وضع حرية الصحافة في الكاميرون.
كانت هناك حملة عامة وعريضة تضم أكثر من ٧٠٠٠ توقيع أرسلناها إلى وزارة الداخلية
البريطانية. كل هذا سمح بالإفراج عني وتم منحي [اللجوء] في عام ٢٠١١ بعد سبع سنوات
في جحيم الانتظار … سبع سنوات من الكفاح.
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/2018/02/tortured-cameroon-
reporter-found-asylum-scotland/
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Feb 18 | News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Dihaber reporters Erdoğan Alayumat (L) and Nuri Akman face up to 45 years in prison on terror and espionage charges.
All eyes turned to Erdoğan Alayumat when he appeared on the screen of the judicial teleconference system of a court in the southern province of Hatay on 2 February, beaming in from a prison 800 kilometres to the north on Turkey’s Black Sea coast. For someone facing up to 45 years in prison on terror and espionage charges, his face seemed serene and composed, his voice calm and collected.
“Had I been spying, there should be proof to show when, to whom and how I sent this information,” Alayumat told the judges of the Hatay second heavy penal court, displaying his journalistic reflex to remind the court that, like any news article, the principles of basic information shouldn’t be lacking in any indictment. It was a quick journalism 101 course to explain that his very job was the thing on trial. “I work as a journalist and report on anything I consider that has news value. I am also remunerated per piece by the agency,” he said.
Alayumat, a 30-year-old reporter working for the shuttered pro-Kurdish outlet Dicle Medya News Agency (Dihaber), was detained on July 15, 2017, alongside a younger colleague, Nuri Akman, who was assigned by the agency to spend a week shadowing Alayumat to gain experience. After spending 13 days in custody, Alayumat was arrested for “procuring confidential state documents for political or military espionage purposes” and “membership in a terrorist organization” and sent to prison, while Akman was released on probation. During the first hearing, the court ruled that Alayumat would remain in detention, and maintained the probationary restrictions on Akman until the next hearing on 25 April.
The taboo of reporting on aid to Islamists in Syria
Prosecutors in Turkey have been presenting journalistic activities as terrorism for a long time, especially since authorities began prosecuting pro-Kurdish outlets as part of the “KCK press trial.” All of the outlets targeted have been closed by successive emergency decrees following a coup attempt in July 2016. Dihaber, founded after its predecessor DİHA was closed by emergency decree in October 2016, was itself was shut down in August 2017. Their successor, Mezopotamya Agency, continues to be targeted with access bans on its website and trials against many of its journalists.
The authorities’ decision to pursue journalists as spies is based on-the-fly definitions of what facts are illicit and harmful to the “security of the state”. While working in Hatay, a multicultural province that borders conflict-ridden parts of Syria, Alayumat had been reporting on allegations that supplies were sent to Islamist groups by Turkey’s intelligence agency, the National Intelligence Organization (MİT), as well as the construction of a wall on the Syrian border. Those reports and photographs – some of which were not even taken by him but downloaded from the Internet – have been presented by prosecutors as evidence of his “crime”.
“Erdoğan Alayumat’s detention is like the premise of the situation we are in today,” his lawyer Tugay Bek told Index on Censorship, referring to Turkey’s joint military operation with opposition fighters in Syria’s Afrin. “Alayumat was investigating how some of these groups [fighting in Syria] were trained and provided logistic supplies by the National Intelligence Organization. These claims, which were rumours and hard to assess back then, are today openly accepted without any need for concealment. They’re even saying to critics, ‘What is there to be against about?’ Alayumat was reporting on whether there was or not such a militia power. We are seeing today that there was,” Bek said.
Reporting on MİT’s activities have become taboo in the wake of the discovery of four trucks that were carrying weapons to Syria in January 2015. Far from denying allegations that the trucks belonged to MİT, the government said the weapons were destined for Turkmen groups fighting in Syria but that reporting the news represented a disclosure of state secrets. When footage and photos showing the content of the trucks were published a few months later by the daily Cumhuriyet, prosecutors were instructed to take strong action. The then-editor-in-chief, Can Dündar, was imprisoned along with Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gül. Dündar, who faces up to 25 years in jail on espionage charges for publishing the story, has been living in Germany since his release by a constitutional court decision, but would face arrest if he returns to Turkey.
Former journalist and main opposition Republican People’s party (CHP) lawmaker Enis Berberoğlu was sentenced to 25 years in prison last year for purportedly providing Cumhuriyet with the video that showed the weapons found in the trucks. The sentence was quashed by an appeals court, but Berberoğlu remains in detention during a retrial that began in December 2017.
In this context, Alayumat’s report on a storehouse which MİT was suspected of using to supply weapons by night and provide training to Syrian opposition groups by day represented high-risk coverage. However, for the charge of espionage to be valid, the prosecution must also show which groups benefited from the exclusive knowledge of the report, his lawyer said.
“If there is some sort of espionage, there should be a recipient. Although emails and WhatsApp messages are in the police’s possession, there is no evidence as to whom [this information] was sent to or where. [The prosecution] feels no need to prove the claims,” Bek said.
Alayumat told the court that everything he did was sent to a media organisation. He rejected the accusation that the photographs of the storehouse were to be used for espionage. “When you prepare a news report, you also need pictures. [People] brought me there, I took pictures and interviewed the people in the area. These pictures were taken for reporting,” he said.
He also complained about a serious factual mistakes in the indictment. The indictment alleged that he had joined “the youth structures of a terrorist organisation” during his university years, he said, indicating that this would have been impossible: “I left primary school in grade 4. I had to support my family. I finished primary school years later through distance education. As I didn’t have any university life, this statement is wrong.”
Police aim to beat murder confession out of young reporter
Reports that Alayumat was subject to ill-treatment and torture at a prison in the Mediterranean district of Tarsus made the news a few months after he was detained. His lawyer filed a complaint, upon which Alayumat was transferred to a prison on the opposite coast of the country. He was subject to diverse forms of punishment including solitary confinement and beatings, reports said.
Akman, a 23-year-old reporter who studies law at Dicle University in Diyarbakır, also suffered ill-treatment by police officers. His protests at his improper detention procedures and insistence at calling his lawyer were met with beatings, he said. “Nine-ten police officers battered me,” Akman said, adding that officers also forced him to admit that he killed two policemen in Hatay. “When I told them that I was an anti-militarist and against the killing of people, I was again subject to physical violence.” Akman said he was taken to a doctor for a medical report but brought back without being permitted to see the physician.
Akman, who despite some nerves before the hearing, smiled amiably and gave an impassioned defence to the court.
He said he intended to spend a week with Alayumat and earn a little money by doing reports. “There is an ongoing war on the other side of the border, so we wanted to report on how people living in bordering towns were affected,” he said, explaining that all the notes and pictures he took were intended for reporting. “I am studying law and I had to follow hundreds of cases when I worked as a judicial reporter in Diyarbakır over the course of one year. I am appalled by these accusations. I don’t accept them.”
To defend themselves, both Alayumat and Akman had to defend that their reporting was not a crime, which is the irony of the situation of journalism in Turkey. Journalists on trial face allegations which question the essence of their job. The expression “journalism is not a crime” has never been more significant for any other profession as it now is for journalism in Turkey.
“I have filed hundreds of reports,” Alayumat told the court. “If you can just look at them, you will see that they are nothing but news reports. What I have been doing is journalism.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”3″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1517838504081-b3f4f9d3-a9c1-8″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Feb 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched an inquiry into Freedom of Speech in Universities. The inquiry is considering a number of issues including: whether free speech is being suppressed in universities, by whom, and the causes. Index on Censorship has provided written evidence to the Committee, which has now been published.
Doughty Street Chambers barristers Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, Jonathan Price and Keina Yoshida worked with Index on Censorship to prepare their submission. It addresses the question of whether freedom of speech on campus is in jeopardy, and specifically considers and criticises the Prevent strategy. Gallagher, Price and Yoshida’s evidence on behalf on Index on Censorship is available here.
Index is currently undertaking a project looking at the issue of free speech at colleges and universities around the world. You can read more about this work and how to support Index here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Feb 18 | Africa, Cameroon, Global Journalist, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”97724″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Charles Atangana knows as well as anyone the challenges of being a journalist in Cameroon.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Atangana was an investigative reporter covering economic issues for the now-defunct La Sentinelle as well as Le Messager, Cameroon’s first independent newspaper, and frequently pursued articles about government mismanagement and corruption in the central African nation.
There was much to cover in Cameroon, which ranks 145th out of 176 countries on Transparency International’s most recent Corruption Perceptions Index. His reporting on the lack of transparency in government oil revenues ran on the front-page for three consecutive days and a separate story on bribery in school admissions implicated the country’s then minister of education.
His reporting wasn’t welcomed by the government of President Paul Biya, who has ruled the country since 1982 and frequently jailed journalists critical of his government. In 2004, Atangana helped organize a press conference for the Southern Cameroons National Council, a group supporting independence for Cameroon’s English-speaking minority in the country’s southwest. During the event, Atangana was kidnapped and taken to a military detention center in Douala, Cameroon’s largest city, where he was beaten and tortured by captors demanding to know who his government sources were.
Atangana says that from the way he was interrogated, he believes that his arrest was ordered by the education minister, Joseph Owona, a longtime Biya loyalist who went on to become head of Cameroon’s soccer federation. Owona did not respond to messages seeking comment. Reached via Facebook, his son, Mathias Eric Owona Nguini, denied his father’s involvement in Atangana’s arrest, writing that some journalists “want to justify their exile by trying to get political asylum even with false data.”
Atangana was able to escape from prison with the help of family, and knew he could no longer remain safely in Cameroon. He eventually made his way to the United Kingdom, where after a lengthy struggle, he was granted asylum.
Today Atangana lives in Glasgow, Scotland, where he is a freelance journalist. He spoke with Global Journalist’s Ailean Beaton about being tortured, sneaking out of Cameroon, and the challenge of winning asylum in the U.K. Below, an edited version of their interview:
Global Journalist: What first attracted you to journalism?
Atangana: From the age of six, we had a classroom activity to encourage those of us who could read a newspaper to tear out a story from the weekend that interested us and then stick it up on the wall. Our teacher called it the “wallpaper journal.”
[In college] I joined the press club. We would sometimes receive journalists who had worked on the radio to come in and speak to us and try to give us the basics of journalism.
I wasn’t very interested in the job at that time because these guys who came to visit the college and explain what journalism is… they weren’t rich guys. The way they dressed- it wasn’t impressive. But my mind changed after growing up. I would sometimes see journalists walking around with a camera. It seemed exciting, all of a sudden.
GJ: How did you end up focusing on economic investigations?
Atangana: When I started my journalism career no one was really interested in economic issues. Whenever you would see such stories it was usually just the press release from the government for IMF funding… No one was focused on investigating; trying to work out what was behind the figures.
I had received corporate training from the World Bank, where I used to work. So myself and some colleagues from state media, we decided to create a group of economic journalists.
We were sick of seeing announcements of projects from the government saying things like: “We are going to build 600 classrooms in provinces across Cameroon.”
And once the money had been taken and the work had been done there was nobody to travel across the country to check– because if you did, you’d find only maybe five or 10 had been built, and the money had all been spent.
GJ: How would you describe the pressures that journalists face in Cameroon?
Atangana: When a journalist writes critically of government figures they might get approached while they are out drinking and get offered a bribe.
They might ask you to soften your writing and maybe put some honey in there about a government minister or someone else. A journalist in Cameroon does not make very much money and so this can be an effective way [of silencing them]. But other times there’s threats or beatings.
GJ: What were you working on that caught the government’s attention?
Atangana: One time my story ran on the front page for three days. It was a story concerning the government’s transparency surrounding their oil revenues and how the World Bank had made them promise to be clear with how that money was moving around in exchange for a large loan.
The story was that for the first time, the government had been pushed down to their knees. The World Bank had said we will give you the money but only if the government published their figures related to the oil flow.
I also worked on a story where I showed that some of the administrators at the colleges were taking bribes from parents so as to admit their children. Some of these people were quite close to the Education Minister.
GJ: What were you doing on the day you got detained?
Atangana: I had just introduced the speakers at a conference and I was called outside. I was confronted by three men who were dressed as journalists, though as it turns out they were not. One of them said to me: “Charles, we’ve followed your writing, we’ve seen your appearances on TV.”
And they began to hit me; first slapping my left cheek and then my right before kicking me down to the ground.
I was taken to the military police cell in Douala- a place where they usually kept serious trouble makers, so I suppose that made me one of them. I was there for a couple of weeks and nobody knew where I had went.
I picked up from the questions they were asking that it was the education minister who had ordered my arrest.
GJ: What did they want from you?
Atangana: I was asked about my sources. That was the main thing they wanted to know: who in government was giving me my information. I had very good contacts in government committees- education, health, finance and in the military– and it was clear to them from my reporting that somebody had been giving me private information.
The second night was painful because I was beaten properly. I remember, the first night I had slept on the floor in my underwear but on the second night they made me sleep without my underwear. They were using wires tied around my genitals to try and put pressure on me to reveal my sources.
I was taught to always protect my sources. When I was a student we had a journalist from Washington come to speak with us. She told us that we must protect our sources at any cost.
The choice was this: reveal my sources and destroy my reputation or die protecting them.
GJ: So how did you escape?
Atangana: After two weeks I realized that this was my end. It was easy for them to kill me- nobody knew where I was. They were feeding me so poorly I got diarrhea, so I asked them to take me to hospital. There, I met a guy who was about to get released and he had a phone. I managed to tell this guy to get word out to my Dad.
I was with somebody from the military police, but he didn’t know who I was or why I was there and so I promised him money. He allowed me to go out to the car park [where my father was waiting].
My sister has a friend who travels to France on business and I managed to organize a journey with him.
GJ: How difficult was it to get asylum in the U.K.?
Atangana: The first few years were very difficult. It took me a couple of months to recover from the ordeal and I started to come back to life.
I feel the discrimination in the asylum system in the UK is strong. You are spending all your time speaking to people in organizations about a country where nobody among the staff has ever been. It was very difficult.
I was arrested in 2008 [in the U.K.] because it appeared my asylum claim was rejected. They didn’t believe I was a real journalist or that I was under threat.
We spoke to an old colleague from the World Bank, he sent a statement. A colleague from Le Messager did the same. The National Union of Journalists in Scotland helped a lot and the Committee to Protect Journalists in the U.S. also wrote about me and forwarded a statement on the situation of press freedom in Cameroon.
There was a public campaign and a petition with over 7,000 signatures that we sent to the Home Office. All of this allowed me to get released and I was granted [asylum] in 2011 after seven years in limbo… seven years of fighting.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/tOxGaGKy6fo”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”6″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”2″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1516872643203-6b958ecf-7eea-6″ taxonomies=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Feb 18 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”97940″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Uncensored: A celebration of banned writing through the ages is a series of events exploring censored work in different cultural and historical contexts.
In the first part of the JW3 series, Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg will host as actors read excerpts from a selection of canonical texts banned and burned by the Nazis. The list includes a range of ground-breaking work from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to Bambi, books published in the early 20th century which continue to define our world today. The evening will be interspersed with live music deemed degenerate by the Third Reich.
This event is presented in association with Watford Palace Theatre. Watford Palace Theatre are currently producing Arthur Miller’s Broken Glass, directed by Richard Beecham, running from 1-24 March. Click here for more information and tickets.
In an era of endless social media feeds and encroaching government control, the written word creates a new truth and collapses an old one every second. This series of JW3 events will explore banned texts, giving voice to silenced words and harnessing the power of language.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Wednesday 21 March 2018 7:30 pm
Where: JW3 341-351 Finchley Rd, London NW3 6ET (Map)
Tickets: £12 via JW3
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Feb 18 | News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Protesters against the KCK press trial marched in Istanbul in January 2012. (Photo: DIHA News Agency)
Turkey can hardly claim a glorious history in terms of press freedom. But even by the standards of the country’s turbulent political past, the soaring number of trials, detentions and convictions of journalists are setting a terrifying precedent.
In 2012 a monumental case dubbed the “KCK press trial” made the headlines as the country’s biggest media trial: 46 journalists, 36 of whom remained in custody for between a few months and two-and-a-half years, were accused of being link to the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), a semi-clandestine organisation that was alleged to be the “urban wing” of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Six years after it began, and with all the suspects released during successive hearings, the trial continues to drag on at a lethargic pace. The latest hearing held on 19 January 2018 hardly made the news.
However, the seeming inertia shouldn’t be interpreted as a good omen. A lawyer representing the accused journalists stressed that the KCK press trial was the model for the many trials opened against journalists and news outlets in the wake of the failed July 2016 coup. “We weren’t surprised when we read the indictment against the Cumhuriyet newspaper,” lawyer Özcan Kılıç told Mapping Media Freedom, referring to the ongoing media trial that has drawn the most public attention. “Those are the exact same allegations that were levelled against those in the KCK press trial. In fact, the KCK press trial is used as a template against all unwanted organisations. Yesterday it was the Kurds, now it’s social democrats. Tomorrow? Who knows?”
Reports on abuse of child convicts used as evidence
The journalists on trial in the KCK case all worked for pro-Kurdish news outlets, including Dicle News Agency (DİHA), as well as the dailies Özgür Gündem and Azadiya Welat, all of which were shuttered by decree following the declaration of a state of emergency in July 2016. Because the prosecution failed to pin any concrete evidence on the accused journalists, their routine professional work was exploited to substantiate the charges.
“The trial didn’t contain any legal allegations, but from the government’s perspective, it was an operation that brought up political allegations,” said Çağdaş Kaplan, a former reporter for DİHA who was among the journalists remanded in detention pending trial. “If you looked at the evidence in the indictment, a great majority of the allegations against journalists were based on news reports, articles or interviews that had their bylines in their outlets, or were based on the communications they had with their sources,” Kaplan, who now works for the online news website Gazete Karınca, told Mapping Media Freedom.
Evrim Kepenek, another former DİHA reporter, joined Kaplan in stressing that the KCK press trial represents a grim milestone in the use of journalistic work as criminal evidence. “None of us denied that we worked at that agency or covered those news stories. Our news agency paid taxes, distributed press cards, registered with social security and had reporters who would be free to join the Turkish Journalists’ Union,” she said.
The evidence against the journalists included news reports unrelated to the KCK trials or even inoffensive articles. In a notorious twist, the coverage of a child abuse case at the Pozantı Juvenile Detention Centre was included in the indictment, which accused the journalists of reporting stories that could “damage the image of the state” and “humiliate the Turkish state in the eyes of the public”. The lead reporter on the story, Özlem Ağuş, remained in custody for two years because of her work.
Water sleeps, but the state never rests
The investigations launched into journalists were part of a wider crackdown on Kurdish politicians and political activists that began in 2009. There were two other mass trials ongoing: 205 Kurdish politicians are on trial in Istanbul, while another 175 defendants are being tried by a Diyarbakır court.
On 20 December 2011 police launched operations on the Istanbul offices of many pro-Kurdish outlets, detaining 49 people and seizing news material. Some 36 journalists were arrested after four days of interrogation on 24 December. Some 44 journalists were initially charged before two colleagues were added to the list.
Kılıç, the lawyer, said they referred to the concept of “Enemy Criminal Law” to refer to the legal cases. “It’s a reflection of the mind of the state. This is how it works: You identify your enemy and you make a terrorist out of them,” he said.
Kılıç, who also represents the Diyarbakır-based Özgür Gündem, the most influential Kurdish newspaper published in Turkey until it was shuttered by an emergency decree in August 2016, said the ongoing cases against the daily demonstrated the same mentality. Referring to a case in which the newspaper’s former editor-in-chief, İnan Kızılkaya, and intellectuals who showed solidarity with the outlet, such as acclaimed author Aslı Erdoğan and writer Necmiye Alpay, face aggravated life sentences, Kılıç said: “The exact same template as the KCK press trial was used. Water sleeps, but the state never rests.”
Lawyers are now awaiting a decision from the European Court of Human Rights, which is expected to weigh in on whether the journalists’ freedom of expression was violated. A decision in favour of the journalists could ensure they are not convicted in a Turkish court, according to the lawyers.
Police chief and judge imprisoned
However, the legal system itself has experienced seismic changes in recent years. First, the Turkish government abolished the specially authorised heavy penal courts in March 2014 as part of a “peace process” with the Kurdish political movement. The court overseeing the KCK press trial was one of them. However, the constitutional court rejected demands for a retrial by defence lawyers, even though the court agreed to rehear other important cases, such as the Ergenekon military coup case.
To rub salt into the wound, the police chief who ordered the arrests of the Kurdish journalists and the lead judge overseeing their case were subsequently accused of being members of the Gülen movement. Once a close ally of the ruling Justice and Development Party, the movement led by US-based Islamist cleric Fethullah Gülen was accused of staging several plots to overthrow the government, including the July 15, 2016, coup attempt. The movement has since been declared a terrorist organisation called “FETÖ”.
The police chief, Yurt Atayün, has been in custody since the government began purging suspected Gülenists from within the state in 2014, while the head judge, Ali Alçık, was arrested a few days after the coup attempt.
But while the government quickly moved to overturn other trials that were allegedly fabricated by the Gülen movement, it has not done so in the KCK press trial.
“The trial should have already been dismissed because ordinary news reports and phone conversations – the kind that every reporter makes – were presented as evidence. On top of it, those who smeared us were found to be FETÖ members. It should have been dismissed without further ado, but it hasn’t been yet,” Kepenek said.
‘Current situation much more severe’
Even if the trial continues despite the seeming collapse of the prosecution’s case, that doesn’t mean the journalists will ultimately be acquitted, Kaplan said, noting that the Turkish government defended itself to the European Court of Human Rights by continuing to insist that the journalists were “terrorists”. “Even though the defendants are journalists, this doesn’t mean that they are not terrorists,” Turkey stated.
“The trial is not continuing as a formality but as a way to threaten. We are continuing to do our job but face several years in prison,” Kaplan said.
For her part, Kepenek expresses concern that the situation today is becoming inexorably worse. Kepenek, a reporter for the pro-Kurdish and feminist Jinnews online news outlet, notes that access to their website was blocked five times in just one week in late January. Journalist Zehra Doğan, the founder of Jinnews and the winner of the 2017 Freedom of Thought Award from the Swiss-based Freethinkers organisation, is also in jail for paintings that portrayed the Turkish army’s crackdown on Kurdish provinces in late 2014 and early 2015.
“We are experiencing a much more severe process,” Kepenek said. “The allegations in the KCK press trial may have collapsed, but now they don’t even need to present allegations. It was possible to sentence my friend Nedim Türfent to over eight years in prison for reporting on the conflict in Hakkâri. What they call proof is news stories. In other words, our reporting is way beyond the process of being declared a crime: It has legally become a ‘crime.’”
In March 2012, less than two months after an operation against Kurdish media outlets, the then-prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, said those arrested were “terrorists, not journalists” for not carrying the prime minister’s “yellow press card”. Now, six years later, he repeated the exact same words during a joint press conference last month with French president Emmanuel Macron in Paris. Yet in the meantime, journalists whom he described as “terrorists” have been freed while those who prosecuted them are now imprisoned on terror charges.
The KCK press trial may be a showcase example that allegations won’t stand the test of time even if politicians’ tactics remain the same – even as the journalists stressed the importance of solidarity.
“Those who remained silent back then are getting their share of the pressure today. This is why we should understand that both the pressure against the Kurdish media in 2011 and the pressure under the state of emergency are attacks against journalism,” Kaplan said.
If anything, the pressure has even emboldened many journalists, Kepenek added. “Journalists’ pens don’t break when they arrest them; they sharpen even more. Governments fail to understand that.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Mapping Media Freedom” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Since 24 May 2014, Mapping Media Freedom’s team of correspondents and partners have recorded and verified more than 3,850 violations against journalists and media outlets.
Index campaigns to protect journalists and media freedom. You can help us by submitting reports to Mapping Media Freedom.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”3″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1517575508678-6c92400a-510e-8″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Feb 18 | News and features, Volume 46.04 Winter 2017 Extras
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Rachael Jolley, editor of Index on Censorship magazine, and Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, discuss our right to protest.”][vc_column_text]
In the year that celebrates the 50th anniversary of 1968 and the Prague Spring, the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks back at what protests have achieved – and talk about today’s protests: do they make any difference?
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
01 Feb 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements, Tunisia
The undersigned regional and international NGOs join Tunisian organisations in their demands that the government immediately withdraw a draft law on the broadcasting regulator which fails to meet international standards on freedom of expression and independent broadcasting in democratic countries.
As part of the important process of harmonising Tunisian legislation with the 2014 Constitution, a draft law was submitted to the Assembly of People’s Representatives in December 2017 and it is currently under review by the parliamentary Commission of Rights and Freedoms. The draft law would partly replace the existing legislation in this area -Decree-Law No. 116-2011, on the Freedom of Broadcasting Communication and the creation of the Higher Independent Audio-Visual Communication Authority (HAICA) – with new legislation solely establishing a new broadcasting regulator, the Audio-Visual Commission.
The draft law and associated reforms have already been criticised by civil society, as the bill was prepared by the Tunisian government without substantial prior dialogue with local human rights and professional groups.
In June and again in December 2017, Tunisian and international human rights and professional groups wrote open letters to President Beji Caid Essebsi, Parliament Speaker Mohamed Ennacer and Prime Minister Youssef Chahed, expressing their deep concern about the draft law, its “unsatisfactory wording”, the “dangerous restrictions” of the prerogatives of the broadcasting regulator it would create, and the “deficiencies in the safeguards guaranteeing” its independence. They also explained that fragmenting of the legal framework “would open the door to ambiguity, conflict and limitation of the freedom of audiovisual communication and the independence of the regulatory body.” There has been no response.
Two legal analyses of the draft Law were made public in Tunis in early January 2018 by Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State (VDCS) and by ARTICLE 19, which concluded that the draft law did not comply with applicable international standards.
We, the undersigned, call on the Tunisian government to immediately withdraw its draft law and initiate a constructive dialogue with relevant civil society and professional groups, independent media experts, and members of parliament. Such a dialogue would help pave the way for the adoption of a comprehensive audiovisual law, in line with the 2014 Constitution and international standards.
Signed,
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
7amleh – Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
ARTICLE 19
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Association for Media Development in South Sudan (AMDISS)
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Independent Journalism – Romania
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Digital Rights Foundation
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Foundation for Press Freedom – FLIP
Freedom Forum
I’lam Arab Center for Media Freedom Development and Research
Independent Journalism Center – Moldova
Index on Censorship
Maharat Foundation
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Watch
National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)
Pacific Islands News Association
Pakistan Press Foundation
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Trinidad and Tobago’s Publishers and Broadcasters Association
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Arab Society for Academic Freedoms
Association Ifouki Media Bladi (IBM), Morocco
Community Media Solutions (CMSO)
Community Radios Association (ARAM), Morocco
Euromed Rights
Center for Media Freedom (CMF), Morocco
Organization for Freedom of Expression and of the Media (OLIE), Morocco
Forum for alternatives in Morocco (FEMAS)
Freedom Now, Morocco
International Media Support (IMS)
Lawyers for Justice in Libya
Libya Al-Mostakbal Center for Media and Culture
Libyan Center for Press freedom (LCPF)
Moroccan Association for Investigative Journalism (AMJI)
01 Feb 18 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A panel discussion with Brigadier Geoffrey Dodds of the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee, Adam Wagner and Jem Collins of the campaigning group RightsInfo, and Rachael Jolley, editor of Index on Censorship.
As the Human Rights Act is under review, panellists will debate the implications and answer questions from the audience.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”97867″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”97865″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”90098″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”97866″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Wednesday 7 March 4.30-7pm
Where: Room TM1-83, London Metropolitan University 166-220 Holloway Road London N7 8DN (Map)
Tickets: Free. Registration required via Eventbrite.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
