[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”97829″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship’s associate arts producer Julia Farrington joins a post-show panel hosted by Javaad Alipoor to discuss media representation, stereotypes and masculinity. Free to ticket holders on the night.
We live in a time where old orders are collapsing: from the postcolonial nation states of the Middle East, to the EU and the American election. Through it all, tech savvy and extremist groups rip up political certainties.
Amidst this, a generation of young men find themselves burning with resentment, without the money, power and sex they think they deserve. This crisis of masculinity leads them into an online world of fantasy, violence and reality.
The Believers Are But Brothers envelops its audience in this digital realm, weaving us into the webs of resentment, violence and power networks that are eating away at the structures of the twentieth century. This bold one-man show explores the smoke and mirrors world of online extremism, anonymity and hate speech.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Peter Tatchell discusses the importance of the right to protest. (Photo: Sean Gallagher / Index on Censorship)
Index on Censorship magazine celebrated the launch of its winter 2017 magazine at the Bishopsgate Institute in London with an evening exploring the legacies of iconic protests from 1918 and 1968 to the modern day and reflecting on how today, more than ever, our right to protest is under threat.
Speakers for the evening included human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, Bishopsgate Institute special collections and archives manager Stefan Dickers and artist Patrick Bullock.
Tatchell discussed the importance of protest for any democracy and the significant anniversaries of protests in 2018 throughout his speech. “This year is a very special year, a very historic year, I think that those protests remind us that protest is vital to democracy,” he said. “It is a litmus test of democracy, it is a litmus of a healthy democracy. Democracies that don’t have protest, there is a problem, in fact, you might even say they aren’t true democracies.”
“With 1968 came the birth of the women’s liberation movement, the mass protests in Czechoslovakia against Russian occupation, and, of course, the huge protests against the American war in Vietnam,” Tatchell added. “Those protests all remind us that protest is vital to democracy.”
Bishopsgate Institute special collections and archives manager Stefan Dickers at the launch of What price protest? (Photo: Sean Gallagher / Index on Censorship)
This year also marks the centenary of the right to vote for women in Britain. Dickers showcased artefacts the Bishopsgate Institute’s collection of protest memorabilia, including sashes worn by the Suffragettes and tea sets women were given upon leaving prison for activities related to their activism.
Suffragette sashes at the launch of What price protest? (Photo: Sean Gallagher / Index on Censorship)
Attendees included actor Simon Callow, who stressed the importance of protest and freedom of expression: in an interview at the event with Index on Censorship. “There are all sorts of things that people find inconvenient and uncomfortable to themselves, that they don’t wish to hear, but that’s not the point,” he said. “The point is that if some people feel very strongly that certain things are wrong, then they must be allowed to say something.”
Disobedient objects at the launch of What price protest? (Photo: Sean Gallagher / Index on Censorship)
Eastenders actress Ann Mitchell, who also attended the event, said: “There is no question in my opinion, that the darkness in the world at the moment must be protested against. All the advantages we have won as women, as ethnic minorities, are being destroyed, they are being wiped out. Unless we hear voices of protests for that, that will continue.”
The night concluded with a performance by protest choir Raised Voices.
Index magazine’s winter issue on the right to protest features articles from Argentina, England, Turkey, the USA and Belarus. Activist Micah White proposes a novel way for protest to remain relevant. Author and journalist Robert McCrum revisits the Prague Spring to ask whether it is still remembered. Award-winning author Ariel Dorfman’s new short story — Shakespeare, Cervantes and spies — has it all. Anuradha Roy writes that tired of being harassed and treated as second-class citizens, Indian women are taking to the streets.b
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”What price protest?”][vc_column_text]Through features, interviews and illustrations, the winter issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at the state of protest today, 50 years after 1968, and exposes how it is currently under threat.
With: Ariel Dorfman, Anuradha Roy, Micah White, Richard Ratcliffe[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”96747″ img_size=”medium”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
عندما يحاول المحرر السابق أوبالي تيناكون التكهن بالسبب الذي أدى إلى محاولة اغتياله في عام ٢٠٠٩ ، تقفز حالتان إلى ذهنه. أحدهما كان افتتاحية كتبها لـصحيفة “ريفيرا” السريلانكية التي كان مديرها ايضا. والأخرى كان مقالا اختار عدم نشره ، وهي الخطوة التي قد تكون أغضبت جنرال قوي في الجيش.
كان تيناكون على دراية جيدة بالمخاطر التي يتعرض لها الصحفيون في سريلانكا. فالحكومة كانت قد منعت الصحفيين من الذهاب الى ميدان الحرب وضيّقت على التغطية الإعلامية “غير الوطنية” للحرب في وسائل الإعلام المستقلة ، ولا سيما تغطية انتهاكات الجيش لحقوق الإنسان.
في ٨ يناير / كانون الثاني ٢٠٠٩، قتل لسانثا ويكريماتونجي ، محرر صحيفة “صنداي ليدر” في سريلانكا، بعد أن أطلق عليه النار أربعة مسلحون كانوا يركبون دراجة نارية ، أثناء توجهه إلى العمل. وجاء اغتيال ويكريماتونجي قبل أيام من إعلانه تقديم أدلة في المحكمة بشأن الفساد المزعوم الذي تورط فيه وزير الدفاع في ذلك الوقت جوتابايا راجاباكسا. كان المحرر قد تنبأ بموته في مقال افتتاحي كان قد أمر بنشره في حال لقي مصرعه. اذ كتب فيها “عندما أقتل في نهاية المطاف ، ستكون الحكومة هي من تقتلني”.
بعد خمسة عشر يومًا من الهجوم على ويكريماتونجي ، جاء دور تيناكون. فبينما كان يقود سيارته إلى العمل مع زوجته بالقرب من العاصمة كولومبو ، اقترب رجل من سيارته في حوالي الساعة ٦:٤٠ صباحاً. قال تيناكون في مقابلة مع غلوبال جورناليست: “اعتقدت أنه كان يحاول التحدث معي”.
ولكن بدلاً من ذلك قام الرجل بتحطيم النافذة الجانبية للسيارة بقضيب حديدي وبدأ بالهجوم على تيناكون. كما انضم ثلاثة رجال مسلحين آخرين على دراجتين ناريتين إلى الهجوم مستخدمين السكاكين والقضبان الخشبية والقضبان الحديدية ، وكسروا الزجاج الأمامي والنوافذ الجانبية. بدأ تيناكون ينزف من وجهه وبديه. رمت زوجته بنفسها من مقعد الراكب الأمامي عليه، في محاولة يائسة لحمايته من الضربات.
“لم يكن لدينا شيء لنردّ به، أي شيء” ، يقول. ” حاولوا كسر رقبتي ، لكنهم لم يصيبوها. وإلا لكنت ميتا الآن”.
فر المهاجمون ، ونقل تيناكون إلى المستشفى. وبعد ثلاثة أسابيع ، فر هو وزوجته إلى الولايات المتحدة ، حيث مكثا طوال السنوات التسع الماضية.
بالنظر إلى الوراء ، يقول تيناكون إن محاولة قتله قد تكون أتت انتقاماً لكتابته افتتاحية انتقد فيها حكومة الرئيس ماهيندا راجاباكسا في أعقاب وفاة ويكريماتونجي. يقول تيناكون إنه قد يوجد أيضاً دافع آخر محتمل. فقد يمكن أن يكون قد تعرض للهجوم لأنه اختار عدم نشر مقال كتبه أحد مراسليه بناء على معلومات من قائد الجيش الجنرال ساراث فونسيكا. اذ اعتقد تيناكون أن هذه المعلومات كانت محاولة تضليل متعمد من قبل فونسيكا لإلقاء اللوم على منافسه ، قائد بحرية سريلانكا آنذاك، على الفشل في إيقاف عملية تهريب امدادات للمتمردين التاميل.
يبقى الدافع الحقيقي لغزا لأنه حتى الآن، لم تتم محاسبة أحد على الهجوم الذي تعرّض له تيناكون أو ويكريماتونجي. في عام ٢٠١٦، ومع تولي حكومة جديدة للسلطة ، عاد تيناكون إلى سريلانكا ، وقام بالتعرف على هوية أحد مهاجميه الذي اتضح أنه ضابط من استخبارات الجيش يدعى بريماندا أودالاغاما. وقد تم بالفعل احتجاز أودالاغاما لتورطه في جريمة قتل ويكريماتونجي، ولكن أُطلق سراحه فيما بعد بكفالة.
في العام الماضي ، أبلغت الشرطة محكمة سريلانكية بأن قائد الجيش السابق فونسيكا قد شهد بأن وزير الدفاع السابق ، جوتابايا راجاباكسا ، كان يدير وحدة استخبارات سرية خارج هيكل القيادة العادية وأنها هي من استهدف ويكريماتونجي والصحفيين والمعارضين الآخرين، وفقا لشبكة الجزيرة. لكن راجاباكسا نفى ارتكاب أي مخالفات ، ولم يرد هو أو فونسيكا على رسائلنا للإدلاء بتعليق.
لم تكن تجربة تيناكون الوحيدة من نوعها. فبين عامي ٢٠٠٤ و ٢٠٠٩ ، قتل ١٦ صحفيا في سريلانكا ، وفقا للجنة حماية الصحفيين. في ١٠ حالات على الأقل ، لم تتم إدانة أي مشتبه به.
يعيش تيناكون ، ٦٥ عاما ، الآن في لوس أنجلوس ويعمل لحساب وكالة تأجير السيارات. لا يزال يكتب في بعض الأحيان في “هيلابيما” ، وهي وسيلة إعلامية باللغة السنهالية مقرها المملكة المتحدة. وتحدث مع يانغي شيو من غلوبال جورناليست عن محاولة اغتياله ومشكلة الإفلات من العقاب في سريلانكا ، حيث جاءت حكومة جديدة منتخبة في عام ٢٠١٥ إلى السلطة واعدة بمقاضاة المسؤولين عن الهجمات على الصحفيين خلال الحرب الأهلية. أدناه ، نسخة محررة من نص المقابلة:
غلوبال جورناليست: ما الذي حدث بعد أن تعرضت للهجوم؟
تيناكون: اتصلت بالشرطة. بقينا في المستشفى لمدة خمسة أيام.
كان الوضع مخيفًا. تلقيت تهديدات عبر الهاتف وطلب مني مغادرة البلاد على الفور. طلب صديقي في الصحيفة [حينذاك] من وزير الدفاع جوتابايا راجاباكسا إرسال عناصر أمنية لحمايتي أثناء وجودي في المستشفى ، لكن وزير الدفاع رفض ذلك وقال إن الأمر ليس ضروريًا.
بعد خروجي من المستشفى لم أعود إلى منزلي وأقمت في منزل والد زوجتي … كنت أعرف أن الجناة قد يكونون يتحينون قدوم فرصة ثانية لإنهاء عملهم … غادرنا في ١٤ فبراير [٢٠٠٩] لأنه لم يكن لدي خطة احتياطية في سريلانكا. أنا وزوجتي كان لدينا تأشيرة دخول لمدة خمس سنوات إلى الولايات المتحدة ، لذلك قررنا المجيء. بعد وصولنا ، طلبنا اللجوء. تم منحنا اللجوء بعد سبعة أشهر.
غلوبال جورناليست ماذا تعرف عن الأشخاص الذين هاجموك؟
تيناكون : قامت إدارة التحقيقات الجنائية بالتحقيق في الاتصالات الخاصة بأولئك الذين ربما كانوا متورطين في هذه الحالات [الهجمات على الصحفيين]. ظنوا أن بعضها قد يتعلق بقضيتي. عدت أنا وزوجتي إلى سريلانكا في عام ٢٠١٦ وتعرّفنا على هوية أحد المهاجمين، الذي كان في الواقع موظفا استخباراتيا. ثم ذهبت وحدي مرة أخرى في أوائل عام ٢٠١٧ ، لكنني لم أتعرّف على هوية على أي شخص آخر. برزت أدلة على وجود صلة بين قتل لسانثا ويكريماتونجي والاعتداء علي. يمكن الافتراض أن نفس الفريق قد تفذ كلا الهجومين وأعتقد أن نيتهم كانت قتلي. لم يكن بالإمكان تشكيل مثل هذه الفرقة التي تضم أعضاء من الجيش دون موافقة كبار المسؤولين العسكريين.
غلوبال جورناليست هل تعتقد أنك سوف تحصل على العدالة بما يخص الاعتداء عليك؟
تيناكون :لا أعتقد أنه في الوضع السياسي الحالي سيتم تقديم المهاجمين إلى العدالة. لم تحقق الحكومة السابقة أو تعتقل أي شخص. خلال الانتخابات، وعدت الحكومة الجديدة بالتحقيق في حالات العنف ضد الصحفيين وتقديم المجرمين للمحاكمة. لكنهم الآن لا يساعدون الشرطة وإدارة البحث الجنائي للوصول إلى المعلومات التي يحتاجون إليها. لدي شعور بأن السلطات السياسية الحالية تحاول أيضاً حماية الجناة … إن نيتهم هي فقط استغلال هذه القضايا سياسيا لأكبر قدر ممكن لكنهم لن يكلفوا أنفسهم عناء جلب الجناة الى العدالة. سأل الرئيس الحالي [مايثريبالا سيريسنا] لماذا تم حبس المهاجمين لفترة طويلة وتحدث عن حقوقهم الإنسانية ، لكنه لم يتحدث عن حقوقنا الإنسانية. نحن ، ونحن نعد بالمئات ، فقدنا وظائفنا ، فيما قتل لاسانتا ويكريماتونجي. ما زالت القضية في المحاكم … المسألة هي أن العدالة تتأخر. وكما نعلم جميعا ، فإن تأخر العدالة هو إنكار للعدالة.
غلوبال جورناليست: هل كان من الصعب اتخاذ قرار مغادرة سريلانكا؟ هل تشعر أن العودة ستكون آمنة الآن؟
تيناكون: كان من الصعب التخلي عن مهمة الصحافة لأنها كانت جزءًا كبيرًا من حياتي. واضطررت أيضاً إلى ترك والديّ خلفي. لا أريد العودة لأن الأفراد الذين أعتقد أنهم مسؤولين لا يزالون في مناصب السلطة … ساراث فونسيكا ، قائد الجيش آنذاك ، هو الآن وزير في الحكومة. كما يلعب وزير الدفاع السابق غوتابايا راجاباكسا دورًا نشطًا في المجال السياسي أيضًا، رغم أنه خارج السلطة. أشعر أن إطلاق سراح المشتبه بهم بالكفالة يهدد سلامتي الشخصية. لا أعرف ماذا قد يحدث لي عندما أزور سريلانكا في المرة القادمة. لا أشعر أن العودة ستكون آمنة.
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]
Upali Tennakoon (courtesy)
When former editor Upali Tennakoon speculates about what led to the attempt on his life in 2009, two incidents jump to mind. One was an editorial he wrote for Rivira, the Sri Lankan newspaper he managed. The other was an article he chose not to publish, a move that angered a powerful army general.
At the time, Tennakoon knew well the dangers for journalists in the South Asian nation. The government had barred reporters’ access to the war zone and criticized independent media’s “unpatriotic” coverage of the war, particularly reporting on human rights abuses by the military.
On Jan. 8, 2009 government critic Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor of another Sri Lankan newspaper called The Sunday Leader, was shot and killed by four motorcycle-riding gunmen on his drive to work. Wickrematunge’s assassination came days before he was slated to give evidence in court about alleged corruption involving then-defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The editor had foretold his death in an editorial he had ordered to be published in just such an event.
“When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me,” he wrote.
Fifteen days after the attack on Wickrematunge, it was Tennakoon’s turn. As he drove to work with his wife near the capital Colombo, a man approached his car at about 6:40 a.m. “I thought he was trying to talk to me,” says Tennakoon, in an interview with Global Journalist.
Instead the man smashed the side window of the car with an iron bar and started attacking Tennakoon. Three other armed men on two motorbikes also joined the attack with knives, wooden rods and iron bars, breaking the windshield and the side windows. Tennakoon’s face and hands were bleeding. From the passenger seat, his wife flung herself on top of him in a desperate effort to shield him from the blows.
“[We had] nothing to do, anything,” he recalled. “They also tried to break my neck, but they missed it; otherwise I would have been dead.”
The assailants fled, and Tennakoon was taken to a hospital. Three weeks later, he and his wife fled to the United States, where they have lived for the last nine years.
Looking back, Tennakoon says that the attempt on his life may have been retribution for an editorial he wrote criticizing then-president Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government in the wake of Wickrematunge’s death.
Tennakoon says there is also a second possible motive. He was attacked for choosing not to publish an article written by one of his reporters based on information from army commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka. Tennakoon thought the information was a misleading attempt by Fonseka to blame a rival, Sri Lanka’s then naval commander, for failing to stop a successful supply mission by Tamil rebels.
The precise motive remains a mystery in part because to date, no one has been successfully prosecuted for either the attack on Tennakoon or Wickrematunge. In 2016, with a new government in power, Tennakoon returned to Sri Lanka and identified one of his attackers from a lineup as an army intelligence officer named Premananda Udalagama. Udalagama had already been taken into custody in connection with Wickrematunge’s death, but was later released on bail.
Last year, police told a Sri Lankan court that the former army commander Fonseka had testified that the former defense secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, ran a secret intelligence unit outside of the normal command structure that targeted Wickrematunge as well as other journalists and dissidents, according to al-Jazeera. Rajapaksa has denied any wrongdoing, and both he and Fonseka did not respond to messages from Global Journalist.
Tennakoon’s experience was hardly unusual. Between 2004 and 2009, 16 journalists were killed in Sri Lanka, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In at least 10 cases, not a single suspect has been convicted.
Tennakoon, 65, now lives in Los Angeles and works for a rental car agency. He still blogs and writes occasionally for Helabima, a U.K.-based Sinhala-language publication. He spoke with Global Journalist’s Yanqi Xu about his attack and the problem of impunity in Sri Lanka, where a new government elected in 2015 came to power promising to prosecute those responsible for attacks on journalists during the civil war. Below, an edited version of their interview:
GJ: What happened right after you were attacked?
Tennakoon: I called the police. We stayed in the hospital for five days.
The situation was fearful. I got threatening calls and was asked to leave the country immediately. My friend at the newspaper asked [then] defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa to send security to me while I was in the hospital, but the defense secretary refused and said it was not necessary.
[After the hospital] I didn’t go back to my place and stayed at my wife’s parents’ house… I knew the perpetrators might be waiting for a second chance to finish their job… We left on Feb. 14 [2009] because I did not have any backup in Sri Lanka. My wife and I both had five-year multiple-entry visas to the U.S., so we decided to come. After we arrived, we applied for asylum. We were granted asylum about seven months later.
GJ: What do you know about the people who attacked you?
Tennakoon: The Crime Investigations Department [CID] investigated the telecommunications of those who might have been involved in these cases [of attacks on journalists]. They thought some were related to my case.
My wife and I went back to Sri Lanka in 2016 and identified one attacker, who was actually intelligence personnel. I went alone again in early 2017, but didn’t identify anyone.
Evidence has emerged over the connections between the killing of Lasantha Wickrematunge and the assault on me. It can be assumed that the same squad handled both attacks and I believe their intention was to kill me. Such a squad involving the members of the military could not have been formed without the support of the top-brass of the military.
GJ: Do you think you’ll see justice for your attack?
Tennakoon: I do not believe that in the current political situation the attackers will be brought to justice. The previous government never inquired or arrested anyone.
The new government promised to inquire into cases of violence against journalists and bring the criminals to court during the election.
But now they are not helping the police and CID to access the information they needed. I have the feeling that current political authorities too are trying to protect the perpetrators… their intention is only to take political mileage out of these cases. They are not bothered about bringing culprits to book.
The current president [Maithripala Sirisena] asked why the attackers were remanded for so long and talked about their human rights, but he was not talking about our human rights. We, in hundreds, lost our jobs, and Lasantha Wickrematunge even got killed. The case is still being heard… the issue is that justice is getting delayed. And, as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.
GJ: Was it a hard choice to leave Sri Lanka? Do you feel safe to returning now?
Tennakoon: It was difficult to give up journalism as it was a huge part of my life. I also had to leave my parents behind. I have no wish to return since the individuals who I believe to be responsible are still in positions of power… Sarath Fonseka, the then Army Commander, is now a cabinet minister. Former defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa plays an active role in the political domain too, though he is out of power.
I feel [releasing suspects on bail] jeopardized my personal safety. I don’t know what will happen to me when I visit Sri Lanka next time. I do not feel safe to return.[/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:1517223145889-6c84a978-58ad-0″ taxonomies=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]International Arts Rights Advisors, a collective of arts and human rights experts of which Index on Censorship’s Julia Farrington is an associate, is concerned that there is a chill on artistic expression as a result of artists being intimidated, trolled, harassed and bullied online in reaction to their artistic and expressive activities.
They are conducting a survey to help them understand the nature and scale of these threats, how they impact on artistic activity in the online space and what steps can be taken in response.
This is a “testing the water” survey, to get a sense of the scale, reach and nature of online harassment, rather than try to measure it in any scientific way.
The survey is anonymous.
IARA respects your privacy and is committed to protecting your anonymity. IARA is also collecting case studies, so if you’d like to tell them more about your experience, please write to them at: [email protected]
This survey will take no more than 10 minutes to complete.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_btn title=”Click here to begin the survey” color=”danger” size=”lg” align=”center” i_icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-check-square-o” button_block=”true” add_icon=”true” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.co.uk%2Fr%2FOnlineHarassment|||”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” full_height=”yes” css_animation=”fadeIn” css=”.vc_custom_1516891729158{background: #ffffff url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/6MD4OKVXIG5JX3NEIA2M_prvw_63818-1024x683ss-1.jpg?id=97759) !important;}”][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”After Gothenburg and Frankfurt book fairs faced tension over who was allowed to attend, we asked four leading thinkers, Peter Englund, Ola Larsmo, Jean-Paul Marthoz, Tobias Voss, to debate the issue” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:left|color:%23000000″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
WORDS APART
In the first of a series of pieces on where the line is drawn on freedom of speech at book fairs, DOMINIC HINDE interviews PETER ENGLUND, a former member of the Swedish Academy’s Nobel committee
Peter Englund is a familiar face around the world, even if many outside Sweden would struggle to place him straight away. For seven years, the award-winning author and former permanent secretary to the Swedish Academy was a fixture on TV screens, emerging each autumn to announce the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature.The Nobel committee has attracted criticism for some of its choices over the years, but Englund, who retired from the post in 2015, said its decisions were never politically charged, and that the Swedish tradition of open dialogue had always been a core principle.
“When I was permanent secretary I used to say that you could never win the Nobel Prize because of your political view, but that it was quite possible to win in spite of your political attitude. The Swedish Academy is also extremely conscious of the extraordinary importance of freedom of expression, not least because it is a basic requirement if writers and researchers are going to be able to work properly.”
Englund is a long-time supporter of free speech causes around the world and, in his own work, has written extensively about totalitarianism in Europe under both communist and fascist regimes. He recently joined the debate closer to home on the competing demands of freedom of speech and growing right-wing movements in Sweden.
The past decade has seen the emergence of far-right populism in the traditionally liberal and open Nordic state. The Sweden Democrats party – who grew from the fringe white power movement in the 1990s – have made significant inroads in parliament and an alternative far-right media has blossomed. More extreme neo-Nazi groups have ridden on the coat tails of the Sweden Democrats and asserted their right to protest in the name of free speech, claiming Sweden is a country in decline, where the mainstream media ignores crime and immigration issues. Englund and some of his fellow writers have increasingly found themselves dubbed an elite of “cultural Marxists” by far- right activists. There is even a Swedish word – åsiktskorridor – which specifically refers to the narrow corridor of opinion extremists assert is allowed by the political establishment.
“I think it is important that we quite simply refuse to recognise this description of the situation. It is an important part of the populist right’s tactics to whip up ‘culture wars’ over more-or-less fictional symbolic questions, and you have to avoid letting yourself get dragged in,” said Englund.
Confronted with the openly anti-democratic and xenophobic politics which is emerging, many on the Swedish left and centre-right have begun to grapple with how Sweden, which has the oldest press freedom laws in the world, can reconcile its commitment to free speech and diversity with such views. In September 2017, the debate came to a head when Nya Tider (New Times), a populist right-wing newspaper, which has been accused of publishing fake news, was booked to appear at the annual Gothenburg Book Fair.
The fair is Sweden’s biggest cultural and journalistic event, but several well-known journalists and writers who would usually be there chose to stay away in protest at Nya Tider’s attendance. Some argued that Sweden’s tradition of a free press meant even the far-right were entitled to have their opinions heard, but Englund and others decided not to take part.
“I chose not to participate because it meant that I would have to appear on the same stage – broadly speaking – as these right-wing extremists, homophobes, conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and Putin supporters, and that would have helped to normalise their views,” argued Englund.
He believes that freedom of expression does not mean automatically welcoming extremists to all platforms, and that the Swedish commitment to an open society does not entail encouraging participation by extremist voices.
“Another important tactic for the populist right is to make themselves mainstream, and that is not something I want to contribute to” he explained. “For me [The Gothenburg controversy] was not a question of freedom of expression. That freedom remains intact. Nobody has tried to stop their paper being printed or attacked their journalists. On top of that, freedom of expression does not mean that you can be allowed to say anything at all, and does not mean that you have an absolute right to take part in any kind of forum.”
Events in Gothenburg reflected a wider disagreement in Swedish society about how best to counter populist politics and where the line between freedom of expression and extremism sits. Englund acknowledges that opponents of the far-right have not always got this right. The country goes to the polls in less than a year and the Sweden Democrats have ambitions to play a role in government, meaning the question may soon become more pressing than ever.
“In Sweden there have been attempts to deal with the far-right question through a combination of shutting them out and through triangulation,” he said. “Shutting them out means refusing to co-operate with them. Triangulation is not about accepting their description of the situation, or their proposed methods for dealing with it, but about understanding that among their voters there is a frustration, and even a fear, which does somehow need to be addressed, and which you can neither ignore nor tweet to death with smart sarcastic posts.
“History is fairly instructive on this. A necessary step for those sorts of movements to come to power – and this happened in both Italy and Germany – was that already established power structures had to invite them in, operating under the serious misconception that they could then be tamed. Those countries that were able to avoid fascism in the 1930s did it not least by showing resistance instead.”
That means being prepared to challenge those from all sides who threaten democratic principles, he believes.“We should, of course, be wary of the threat from the extreme right – the past tells us that – in the same way we have to keep an eye out for what is happening on the extreme left. I believe in democracy in Europe, but to avoid it meeting the same fate as the Weimar Republic, it has to be belligerent.”
Dominic Hinde is a journalist
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”The Swedish Academy is also extremely conscious of the extraordinary importance of freedom of expression” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
WHY I ATTENDED GOTHENBURG
Award-winning Swedish author OLA LARSMO explains why he went to the Gothenburg Book Fair
One of the important freedom of expression debates in Sweden has been running for about a year now and concerns the annual Gothenburg Book Fair. When it was announced that the extreme right-wing publication Nya Tider was allowed to rent a space at the 2017 Fair, some 200 Swedish writers wrote in a joint statement that they would not attend. This sparked a heated debate. What about defending the rights of people to spread deplorable or even dangerous opinions? What happens if you don’t?
I decided to attend the fair – along with other writers who stated that they would not be run out of the place by extremists. But I have great respect for those who chose not to. We are all trying to defend society against what must be considered a rising tide of fascism. But how to do that, and at the same time defend freedom of speech?
On 7 April 2017, a man hijacked a truck in central Stockholm and drove down a pedestrian street, targeting everyone in his way. Five people were killed. The suspect later said he was acting as a supporter of Isis. The response from ordinary people was massive. Beside the mountain of flowers in central Stockholm, it was obvious that everybody was determined to counteract the intimidation of terror by going on with life as normally as they could, because the trust between ordinary citizens is what makes an open society possible.
This was very much at the back of my mind when I decided to go to the fair. We also managed to organise a number of seminars and events that addressed the threat hate speech poses to freedom of speech. It felt like an opportunity to point to the elephant in the middle of the room.
Nya Tider is not “banned” – in fact they receive a tax- financed grant of about $358,167 – the same as other papers with the same circulation. The question was whether the fair had an obligation to open its space to a paper associated with the extreme right. Since the fair is a private enterprise, many felt that they were within their rights to choose their exhibitors freely.
During the last few years, Swedish writers, journalists and politicians have been facing a rising wave of death threats and hate speech. Solid research shows that these threats emanate mostly from right-wing extremists and, to a lesser degree, from radical Islamists.
They target publicists with the purpose of driving them to self-censorship.
So how, then, should society deal with these threats with- out lowering the ceiling for freedom of speech? That this threat is real became obvious as a demonstration of several hundred neo-Nazis tried to reach the fair on the Saturday, but were stopped by the Gothenburg police. The attendance that day shrank to half the ordinary numbers.Writers are a specific target for these extremists, and the 200 writers stated openly that they did not want to share the floor with a paper associated with that political agenda.Personally I feel that those of us committed to defending freedom of speech have to use all powers to counter the double threat we are now facing: that of intimidation through hate speech and, on the other hand, stronger legislation that threatens to smother what it is supposed to defend. We can’t close our eyes to either.
Ola Larsmo is a long-time president of Swedish PEN
No serious book fair could exclude or censor a legal publication, argues Frankfurt’s vice president of international affairs TOBIAS VOSS
The Frankfurt Book Fair is a commercial enterprise. Yet the “commodity” we trade in is a very distinctive one: books convey ideas and, among other things, ideas significantly shapes social discourse, whether aesthetic, moral or political in nature. In this respect, it is necessary to regularly question the limiting of “critical” or “problematic” content. All book fairs thrive on the diversity of content presented by participants. In this regard, book fairs that strive to meet this objective are, therefore, a demonstration of the diversity of opinion and discourse. No serious international book fair that aims to represent the market and diversity of opinion is in a position to exclude or censor market players.
This approach – tolerating at times extremely problematic positions – must then also apply to titles that are perceived as an affront, as offensive or downright repugnant, by segments of the public.
The only exception for such a ban or exclusion is existing legislation. Only if a title is forbidden by law in Germany, then we feel it is right to ban this title or even the actual fair participant, from the exhibition.
Our book fair respects the separation of powers as an essential organisational principle for guaranteeing democratic freedoms, the associated institutions and the decisions and measures established under it. Whenever existing laws are violated at Frankfurt, we, as the organiser, will take action against this infringement through the department of public prosecution and the police.
A functioning democracy must tolerate dissent (as it has, after all, done successfully in Germany for decades), and must accept that the freedom of expression also applies to segments of the public that question – and at times even wish to do away with – the established legal order. The fair does not see it as its duty to establish its own political, moral or aesthetic criteria for permitting or forbidding things.
In keeping with its principles, the Frankfurt is committed to freedom of expression, freedom of publication, dialogue as a means of fair communication and respect for the democratic separation of powers and the decisions and measures that have been established to ensure it. The fair demonstrates this position in a wide variety of ways – through international involvement, by supporting the “Cities of Refuge” project and by curating well over 200 discussion events at our event and at book fairs abroad.
Tobias Voss is vice president, international affairs, of the Frankfurt Book Fair
Banning organisations with which you disagree means you don’t have the chance to argue your case, says JEAN-PAUL MARTHOZ
The recent Gothenburg and Frankfurt book fairs have again been riven with controversies around the presence of far-right publishers. From a progressive perspective, banning the far-right seems the appropriate thing to do. The rationale is clear: the barbarians are at the gates and no one has ever said that democracies should offer their foes the rope with which to hang them.
From a liberal point of view, however, things are not so easy. Liberal democracies are, by definition, committed to providing space to ideas that radically question their most essential values – and even threaten their very existence.
There should be freedom for the enemies of freedom. As long as far-right publishers are not legally banned, and don’t exhibit books that clearly flout the law, there are few arguments against them which would pass Voltaire’s test on freedom of expression.
While the far-right has been associated with the most thuggish forms of censorship, its leaders have been effective in denouncing the progressives’ “fear of the truth”. Free speech for me, but not for thee?
By principle, liberals should not concede one of their most iconic values to the far- right, even if the latter has opportunistically hijacked free speech in order to provide a veneer of respectability to hate speech.
Banning can be seen as a confession of weakness or an admission that liberal arguments are not convincing enough to be – nor capable of being – expressed in a way which might distract potential far-right sympathisers from extremist organisations.
In fact, any attempt to get the far-right out of the public arena only reinforces one of its core recruiting arguments: “patriots” are victims of a conspiracy in a “rigged system” run by a cosmopolitan and hypocritical liberal establishment.
Responding to the far-right is all the more crucial today, since it has the capacity to get around its exclusion and reach a wide audience through the internet and social networks. The only way to reduce its influence is to produce counter-arguments and alter- native discourse and disseminate them widely beyond the converted.
Banning an organisation, or censoring its ideas, too often exempts it from the rigorous and imaginative thinking which is the only effective way to push back and win the battle of ideas.
Jean-Paul Marthoz is a Belgian journalist and essayist. He is the author of The Media and Terrorism (2017, Unesco)
Neo-Nazi groups are recruiting throughout the developed world; leading the drive are their high energy, punk-derived anthems of hate. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”What price protest?” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2F2017%2F12%2Fwhat-price-protest%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In homage to the 50th anniversary of 1968, the year the world took to the streets, the winter 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at all aspects related to protest.
With: Micah White, Ariel Dorfman, Robert McCrum[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”96747″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/2017/12/what-price-protest/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Jan. 25, 2018 (London and Columbia, Mo.) – Index on Censorship and the Missouri School of Journalism’s Global Journalist have formed a new partnership to help tell the stories of journalists exiled from their home countries for reporting the news.
Under the agreement, the U.K.-based freedom of expression group will publish interviews and articles about journalists in exile written by student journalists and professional staff at ‘Global Journalist’ on the Index on Censorship website.
The partnership is an extension of Global Journalist’s “Project Exile” series, which has published 52 interviews with exiled journalists from 31 different countries since September 2014. The series has included interviews with former New York Times’ Iran correspondent Nazila Fathi, Iraqi BBC News cameraman Qais Najim and Newsweek Japan cartoonist Wang Liming of China, also known as “Rebel Pepper,” who is the 2017 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards Arts Fellow.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 262 journalists were in jail for their work in 2017. Though estimates vary, many others escape prison or violence by fleeing their home countries each year.
“Telling the stories of journalists who lose their right to live in their own country for simply doing their job is one way to highlight efforts to roll back freedom of expression around the globe,” said Fritz Cropp, the associate dean for global programs at the Missouri School of Journalism. “Together with Index on Censorship we hope this effort will intensify scrutiny of governments that seek to intimidate the press into submission.”
Index on Censorship is a London-based nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. It publishes work by censored writers and artists, promotes debate, and monitors threats to free speech through its Mapping Media Freedom project. Founded in 1972, Index on Censorship magazine publishes original creative writing and articles about free expression from across the globe. Its contributors have included noted authors and journalists including Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Salman Rushdie, Ken Saro-Wiwa and Václav Havel.
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_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”6″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”2″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1516816724036-b6713aa4-3a80-10″ taxonomies=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Both before and after the state of emergency that followed the botched coup in 2016, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has shown increasing authoritarian tendencies, rolling back an essentially weak democracy. Now a truly authoritarian regime is in place and instigates multiple attacks against fundamental rights and democratic institutions, such as arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of critical voices, extensive use of emergency decrees, massive purges of the state institutions and the witch hunt against the Academics for Peace, signatories of the Peace petition. As it is generally the case, free speech and academic freedom have been major casualties of this authoritarian drift. Gathering academics, lawyers and human rights defenders, this panel will offer a critical insight into current legal and political developments in Turkey and discuss the way forward in the defence of freedom of expression and academic freedom in the country.
Panel 1 – 14.30 – 16.00Free Speech under Threat in Turkey: A Legal Approach
Chair: Noémi Lévy-Aksu (Birkbeck College)
Ayse Bingöl (Media Legal Defence): The criminalisation of speech under state of emergency regime.
Bill Bowring (Birkbeck College, Professor of Law): Recent Strasbourg case law on freedom of expression in Turkey.
Oya Aydın (Lawyer): What are the Academics for Peace accused of?
Mapirajući povrede medijskih sloboda organizacija „Index on Censorship“ zabeležila je i tužbe ministra Nenada Popovića protiv KRIK-a. „Zabrinuti smo da su istraživačke redakcije tužene zbog otkrivanja korupcije vladinih zvaničnika“, piše u saopštenju. Read the full article
[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 52 interviews with exiled journalists from 31 different countries.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
2017 Freedom of Expression Journalism Fellow Zaheena Rasheed, Maldives Independent (Photo: Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship)
For many tourists, the Maldives is a resort destination with straw-thatched luxury bungalows perched atop the clear blue Indian Ocean. But for journalist Zaheena Rasheed, this small island nation, located off the southwest coast of India, is home. At least, it was.
Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards 2017 Journalism Fellow Rasheed, who was born in the Muslim-majority archipelago of 400,000 and attended college in the USA, developed an interest in journalism in 2008 when she took a semester off school to intern at the Maldives Independent news site. While there, she covered the country’s first multiparty elections, in which human rights activist and former political prisoner Mohamed Nasheed defeated longtime dictator Mamoon Abdul Gayoom.
Rasheed went to work full-time at the Independent and began climbing the ranks, but her professional life took a turn in 2012 after the democratically-elected Nasheed was forced from power and the space for the independent press and government criticism began closing. In 2014 a colleague who was known for criticising Islamists and the government, Ahmed Rilwan, went missing. By 2015, she was editor-in-chief of the Independent, but the political situation in the Maldives had worsened. The former president Nasheed was jailed and eventually went into exile in the UK while travelling there for medical treatment.
Press freedoms worsened in August 2016 when the new president Abdullah Yameen signed into a law a sweeping criminal defamation law that carried large fines and jail terms for slander as well as speech that threatens “social norms” or national security. Rasheed and 16 others journalists were detained for protesting the law.
By then Rasheed had earned the government’s ire through the Independent’s investigation intoRilwan’s disappearance as well as corruption in Yameen’s government. A tipping point came when she appeared in an explosive Al Jazeera investigative documentary in September 2016 called “Stealing Paradise.” The program implicated the highest reaches of Yameem’s government in a $1.5 billion international money laundering scheme.
Knowing she would face repercussions, Rasheed fled to Sri Lanka just days before the documentary was released. Hours after it appeared online, police raided the offices of the Maldives Independent.
“Sri Lanka, in many ways, has been the first stop for Maldivian dissidents,” Rasheed says, in an interview with Global Journalist. “It’s housed many, many different Maldivian dissidents, politicians, journalists, human rights defenders over the years, over the decades.”
Rasheed continued to edit the Independent remotely, but in April 2017 she moved to Qatar and accepted a reporting job with Al Jazeera.
Currently living in Doha, the 29-year-old spoke with Global Journalist’s Rayna Sims about witnessing firsthand the decline of press freedom in the Maldives and her hopes of returning home. Below, an edited version of their interview:
Global Journalist: What have been some of the effects of the anti-defamation law in the Maldives?
Rasheed: I left just three weeks after the defamation law came in, so I haven’t felt the effect of it myself, and it’s been about a year since I’ve left the Maldives…But it’s really had a chilling effect. People are a lot more careful about what they report on and what they say. One of the television stations has been fined a number of times, and they’ve essentially had to set up donation boxes to collect the money to pay off these fines. And the law allows for the government to shut them down if they’re unable to pay the fines.
Tell me about the disappearance of your colleague, Ahmed Rilwan.
He was about 28, I think, when he disappeared. He was just a really wonderful human being, and he cared a lot about doing stories about rural Maldives, which is not covered very well by the local media. He also was quite a prominent blogger. He was quite prolific on social media before he joined our team. He was known for satirizing the religious extremists, and he received quite a lot of threats over the years…as did many other journalists.
For me, it was obviously one of the most important events of my life in some ways. Just to have someone you work with, you know, just to have them disappear like that. It was the first disappearance of that kind, and I think it made us all realize that it could happen again, and it did. In April one of Rilwan’s best friends [a political blogger] was killed as he came home from work.
What has it been like living in exile and working for Al Jazeera in Doha?
Al Jazeera has been really, really great. I think a lot of people who go into exile, it’s just this sense of having your moorings cut and not knowing what to do next. You know, to have this life and then just to be uprooted from it, to be away from your family and your daily routine and your job and everything that gave you meaning. It’s very jarring in many ways…it really impacts your sense of both identity and also…what gives you purpose and meaning in life. Suddenly all of that is taken away.
Do you think you will return to the Maldives one day?
I do hope to return to the Maldives one day. I think the hardest part about living in exile has been missing deaths and births. My grandmother died last December, and then I just add[ed] a baby niece, so I’d like to go back and see her.
When you return to the Maldives, do you think you will continue being a journalist?
Not for a little while I guess, and it depends on what happens in the Maldives. It will be really hard to go back and do exactly the same thing I was doing without persecution. I think if I were to go back and continue doing the same job, it’s just a matter of time before I’m picked up again.[/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_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”6″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”2″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1516806129189-84da7a6a-de56-3″ taxonomies=”9028″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Will hip-hop help sew the seeds of another Chinese cultural revolution? Hip-hop is a new and wildly popular genre in China, but the country’s censorship board has designated some hip-hop content as immoral and vulgar, and says it doesn’t belong on the air. Read the full article
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.
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:
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
