14 Dec 17 | Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Veteran Belgian journalist and author of Terrorism and the Media, Jean-Paul Marthoz delivered the following remarks on 5 December 2017 at a round-table debate in the European Parliament hosted by MEPs Barbara Spinelli and Curzio Maltes:
Democracy, journalism and literacy in the era of post-truth
Everything has been said on fake news. Since the word ‘post-truth’ was chosen as the word of the year in 2016 by the Oxford dictionary there is not one day without an evocation of the ‘new kingdom of lies’.
Fake news however, as it is currently understood, is not any kind of lie. It is a deliberately mendacious or misleading information, specifically designed to have a disrupting impact (on society, geopolitics, etc.) and to become viral in the media and on social networks.
The word has taken on an eminently political connotation with Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. The unexpected candidate of the Republican Party turned it into a brand, not only by filling his speeches and tweets with approximative or even false facts but also by accusing quality media of being the ones producing fake news.
The word has taken on a strategic dimension with accusations of Russia’s intervention in the US electoral campaign. In the current remodeling of the world, fake news is part of strategies of influence and belongs to the arsenal of asymmetrical warfare.
Migration has been none of the privileged targets of these rogue concepts of information. During his campaign Donald Trump lambasted Mexican ‘bad hombres’. The Brexit campaign was polluted from end to end by made-up stories on Syrian refugees and Polish plumbers.
Migrations have always lead to fabrications and exaggerations. Before the word fake news even appeared, many media, UK tabloids in particular, exploited the vein, with extravagant headlines on migrants. It was a banal case of media sensationalism. Today however the theme of migrations is used strategically in order to sow confusion within European countries and to support populist movements who, nearly everywhere in Europe, question the foundations and values inscribed in EU treaties. It is one of the most efficient levers of populism and far right extremism.
Such strategy benefits from an exceptional soundboard in social networks. These are not only used by millions of citizens who intervene, sometimes wisely, sometimes through their hat, in information flows and public debates, but also by organized, and at times even robotised, groups who pursue a deliberate policy of occupation and agitation on the social networks.
Some have made disinformation a business, like these Macedonian kids who had their moment of fun when they informed about the Pope’s endorsement of Donald Trump, leading to millions of clicks and thousands of dollars of ad money. But this is an epiphenomenon, an anecdote, when compared with the political strategies that have been put in place.
Fake news is a direct attack against the democratic ethos. It aims at polluting the agora, leading, in Matthew D’Ancona’s words in his book Post Truth (Ebury Press, 2017, p. 2) to ‘the infectious spread of pernicious relativism disguised as legitimate skepticism’.
The labelling of prestigious media as ‘fake news’ outlets by those who are the major emitters of fake news is part of a determined attack against the system of checks and balances which define and protect liberal democracy. The purpose is to delegitimize the ‘elites’, the ‘Establishment’. It is to weaken counter-powers and in particular legacy media which in the US case constitute one of the brakes on the impulsive matamorism of Donald Trump. In Germany too, attacks against the « lying press », a reminiscence from the Nazi years, or in France, the denigration of ‘merdia’ and ‘presstitute’ have a strategic aim: to discredit those who decode and denounce the lies of surging populist leaders and movements.
Fake news is also a revealer of our societies and their drifts. It is part of a digital universe which is at the same time fascinating and destabilizing. Words like phishing, spoofing, hacking, filter bubbles, testify to the anxiety which corrodes a digitalized world that cannot just be candidly described as liberating and empowering.
Fake news also reveals the state of opinion. It measures its knowledge and critical sense, or the lack of it. Post truth, writes the Oxford Dictionary, means that ‘objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’. One of the problems lies in the fact that part of public opinion does not seem to care about lies from personalities that it supports. Fact-ckecking bumps into a wall of mistrust and dogmas which the unquestionable presentation of verified facts cannot shake.
Much more fundamentally, as EU Commissioner Mariya Gabriel in charge of digital economy and society, said in an interview with Le Soir, ‘disinformation is also a political and a societal problem. Our societies’ vulnerabilities open the doors to disinformation. I am referring to unequalities, social fractures, mistrust in society and the rejection of elites’.
How can we explain the resurgence, especially among the young, of conspirationism, of an attraction for suspicious explanation of events? This phenomenon is the barometer of a loss of trust in institutions and not only in the education system and the media. It should lead to reflecting on the profound reasons of such disorientation and disarray. ‘Is not fake news a symptom rather than a cause of our crumbling democracies?’, asked François-Bernard Huyghe, founder of the Observatoire géostratégique de l’information en ligne (Paris).
Fake news also exposes the vulnerabilities and failings of our media system. In fact it should seriously alert us about significant developments in a sector which is crucial to democracy. The malaise which has gripped legacy media, deprived of a business model, the migration of a great part of the audience, the youth in particular, towards platforms like Facebook, threaten a media system which remains a crucial element in the democratic accountability process.
The focus on fake news, to the extent that it is described as information disseminated by adversaires or enemies, entails another risk: intolerance towards sources of information or opinions which we don’t like or find inconvenient.
RT and Sputnik news, for instance, are undoubtedly state media, of an authoritarian state, Russia, which has suffocated freedom of expression internally. They are undoubtedly tools of Russia’s strategy of influence with regard to the West. But should they be targeted by special measures aimed at excluding them from the democratic agora? Let us remember that authoritarian states, like terrorist or far right organizations, endeavor systematically to demonstrate that liberal democracy is a sham, a thin veneer covering a system of domination and exploitation. Banning them would be entering into a trap. The risk of witch hunts is never far away.
The rigorous assessment of the reach of fake news is a precondition to any reasoned and efficient response. Studies disagree on the place and the real impact of fake news. Their mode of production, their strategies of dissemination and the way they are received should be thoroughly and serenely studied.
The appeal to the responsibilisation of digital platforms appears evident. Some governments have put pressure on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google and others to push them to police what remains their private domain and to excise the most extreme forms of disinformation. But there is a limit and a danger: converting these platforms in private censors, beyond the norms and guarantees of the rule of law. In September 2017, for instance, the World Socialist Website, a trotskyist media, estimated to have lost 70% of its search engine-led traffic because of a change introduced in April by Google.
Such risks imply a need to seriously question the hegemony of these platforms, which is, as much as or even more than fake news, a threat for democracy.
Fact-checking has become a household word in journalism. It is surprising that it is sometimes presented a specialized form of journalism where it should be a banal, obvious, element of all forms of journalism. It is undoubtedly more necessary today because of the bulk and the speed of information but if the purpose is to convince the gullible, it might not be efficient since it is being practiced mostly by these ‘stenographers of power’ who are accused by populists of ‘hiding the truth’.
Media literacy is again without doubt a crucial element. Most of the public does not master the media codes. It does not acknowledge the silos of certainties in which it encloses itself. Such media education, however, must cover all the media, even the video games, and should start very soon, with young children. And it must be part of a more comprehensive approach to education as such, of a permanent learning system and process which in all its expressions develops critical thinking, judgment and openness to diverse opinions. To scotch media literacy programs on failing or dogmatic schools will be vain.
Support to public interest media seems likewise essential. Now, in many European countries, public service broadcasting is on the defensive, when it does adopt itself populist practices which contradict their proclaimed values. However when they are well-conceived and protective of freedom, independence and pluralism, such support to media (public or private) « in the public interest » can really promote experiences and initiatives which go against the trends of disinformation and trivialization. Such measures should not benefit only legacy media but also to the web where the most decisive battles for the formation for public opinion are being fought.
Finally the fear of fake news should not become obsessive. It should not sub-estimate the capacity of citizens to identify falseness nor the capacity of journalism to renew itself, as has been demonstrated by the ICIJ (International consortium of investigative journalism) with its groundbreaking forms of collaborative transnational journalism projects.
It should not ‘relativise’ either the imperative for democracies not to over-react and the urgency to stay faithful to their most essential principles.
It has become banal to quote Benjamin Franklin’s famous (and contested) phrase: ‘those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety’. It has become banal to quote it because the temptation to give in to censorship or control is increasingly present.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1513269834820-b5b02dbd-a0e2-0″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
13 Dec 17 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship rejects many of the suggestions made in a report into intimidation of UK public officials by a committee tasked with examining standards in public life.
The report recommends — among other things — creating legislation to make social media companies liable for illegal content and increasing the use of automation to remove content that is not only illegal but “intimidatory.”
“Like many such reports, the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life makes the mistake of lumping together illegal content, intimidatory content — which the committee itself admits is hard to define — and abusive content,” said Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship.
“While some content outlined in the report — such as threats of rape — can clearly be defined as harassing or intimidatory in nature, deciding whether content is illegal or not largely depends on understanding the context — and that is something that neither ‘automated techniques’ nor speedy removals can address.
“We are deeply worried by the growing trend in which democratic governments devolve responsibility for making decisions that should be made by the police or the judiciary to unaccountable private bodies to censor speech. [/vc_column_text][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]
Intimidation in Public Life uses language that would not be out of place in any dictator’s handbook
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In addition to a number of recommendations for social media companies to take action, the committee’s report also recommends that press regulators should extend their codes of conduct to include “intimidatory behaviour”.
“This report uses language that would not be out of place in any dictator’s handbook,” said Ginsberg. “The idea that the press should include in their code of conduct an element that addresses whether content could ‘unduly undermine public trust in the political system’ sounds like a gift to any politician wanting to challenge reports with which they disagree. Rather than enhance democracy and freedoms, as this report claims to want to do, this risks damaging it further.”
Index welcomes the fact that the committee deemed new criminal offences specific to social media unnecessary, but cautions that devolving power to social media companies to police content could have significant risks in scooping up legitimate as well as illegal content because of the sheer volume of material being posted online every second.
Index would also strongly caution against any engagement with other governments at the international level on “what constitutes hate crime and intimidation online” that could result in a race to the bottom that adds further global restrictions on speech.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
[/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=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1513167851048-354a7311-4d5b-3″ taxonomies=”16928″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
13 Dec 17 | Index in the Press
Hundreds of experts and many representatives of international organizations took part, including Veran Matic, president of the Serbian Commission Investigating Murders of Journalists. Read the full article
12 Dec 17 | Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96900″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Thirty-one people, mostly Zaman journalists, appeared before a judge for the second time on 8 December on charges of aiding Turkey’s failed coup attempt of 15 July 2016 in a session held in the courtroom on the territory of the Silivri Prison Complex, which is currently home to some 150 journalists.
Most of the suspects were marking their 500th day in prison on the day of the trial. The world didn’t seem to care.
The crowds that attended the Cumhuiyet trial weren’t there. Only suspects’s families, several international observers and reporters from just two agencies and a local journalism organisation followed the hearing, which went on until after midnight. Among the defendendts were famous columnists as Şahin Alpay and Ali Bulaç.
Article 19’s representative posted a picture of the lonely courthouse with a tweet: “At the courtroom for #zaman trial, including several journalists and famous columnist Sahin Alpay. Apart from relatives of defendants there is hardly anyone here #journalism is not a crime.”
Zaman was the flagship newspaper of the Fethullah Gülen network, which has been declared public enemy number one since the attempted coup. Turkey claims that the Gülen network — with which the government had fallen out in 2012 — was behind the coup attempt. But foes of the government love to hate the Gülen movement, and maybe rightly so. At the peak of their power, prosecutors affiliated with the Gülen network conducted investigations into writers, secularist military officers and others, accusing them of plotting a coup against the then prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Many, including journalist Ahmet Şık, were jailed for months, some even years, on what today are known to be mostly false charges.
The suspects, who already submitted their full defense statements in the first hearing in September, were allowed to speak in the second hearing. As is the case in most of Turkey’s politically motivated trials, the sense of a combination of personal tragedy and Turkey’s own traumas over the past decade — starting with growing polarisation, which some say lies in the heart of Turkish President Erdoğan’s successive election victories; unnamed regime change; a bloody coup attempt was almost palpable in suspect testimonies. Some were fearful, some resentful, some apologetic. Many said they regretted having written at Zaman, while few said they were proud.
Former Zaman writer Ahmet Turan Alkan’s defense statement was unapologetic. He spoke clearly, distinctly and with purpose. Looking at the judges, he said:”You can’t take 500 days stolen from the life of a person lightly. For this reason, I ask of you to forgive me, I am a little bit angry, I am enraged.”
Alkan stressed the violations of due diligence, which have also been pointed out by international observers, “You are more aware of this fact than I am: This case is the result of a vengeful ambition, of political grudge. The accusations against me are mind bogglingly severe , while the evidence department is empty.”
He continued: “Is it that easy in this Republic of Turkey, which is governed by rule of law, to steal 500 days of the life of a person on such light and facetious accusations? I will answer: Yes. Is it that cheap playing with my life, honor and professional reputation? The answer is yes. “
The former Zaman writers also chastised some of the other defendants, who in their statements said their affiliation with Zaman had been a mere result of the circumstances. “I wrote at Zaman for 20 years. I am a Zaman columnist. I wrote what I believed in. I have no political commitments to anyone, neither to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan or Fethullah Gülen, and I am proud of this. This will be the most meaningful legacy I will be leaving to my grandchildren and children. Because I don’t know if I will walk out of prison alive.”
He said he was angry at the state. “I was a nationalist in my youth, I wish that God will forgive me.” The journalist also had a message for the judges: “The government until today has never owned up to any of its mistakes. It’s always been bureaucrats who have had to pay the price.”
“I don’t expect to see compassion or justice from you. I just need you to put concrete laws to work,” he said, and finally completed his statement:“There are such courts that it is better to be the defendant in them than the judge.”
In stark contrast, former Zaman columnist and liberal academic İhsan Dağı — who was released pending trial earlier in the investigation and therefore testified via court-conferencing from Ankara, where he lives — was regretful. He said he agreed with the indictment, that the Gülen network was a terrorist organization and Zaman had become a mouthpiece for it. “I am accused because I wrote for the Zaman newspaper. I left the newspaper the moment when I understood that it had turned into a mouthpiece for FETÖ propaganda,” he said, which made him the only defendant to use the acronym used for the Gülen network by Turkish authorities. He said “FETÖ” was a “post-modern terrorist organisation,” hiding behind a legitimate face and using not its own weapons, but those of the state.
Other writers and columnists
Former Zaman columnist Lale Kemal, who was also let go after spending three months in prison, also testified via the court’s video conferencing system. She likened her ordeal to Kafka’s The Trial. She said: “There are three short paragraphs about me in the indictment. There is not a single piece of evidence against me.”
She said she was known professionally for her opposition to all military interventions, against that as a defense reporter, this has made her life difficult as she was not well liked by military officers.
“I think my being tried here has something to do with that hostility [some generals have felt towards me].”
She said she worked from home, and visited the Zaman building in Ankara maybe once or twice. “The claim that I am part of a hierarchical structure is out of reason.”
“How can I know about an organisation where the senior administration of intelligence organisations failed to monitor and prevent?”, she asked.
Lawyer Cengiz: Indicted for acting as lawyer for Zaman
Lawyer Orhan Kemal Cengiz, whose name is named only mentioned once in the indictment — on a page which lists the names of the suspects — said he was included in the investigation after filing an application with the constitutional court against the government’s appointing trustees to Zaman. Saying that throughout his career he had defended people of all creeds, Cengiz said his inclusion in the indictment was a blatant attack on the right to defense. He asked for his acquittal.
Şahin Alpay: “I was mistaken”
Columnist Şahin Alpay, who is 73 and who has complained of poor health, said he had been imprisoned for more than 16 months. Alpay said he was accused on the basis of seven articles published in the Zaman daily three or four years ago.
Alpay said the articles showed his commitment to parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, saying they were evidence in his favor, not against. “Everyone knows that I defend exclusion of violence from politics as a fundamental principle.“
“I sent in my articles via email and I never worked as an editor or executive at the newspaper. If there had been a judicial ruling about the Gülen network being a criminal organisation, I wouldn’t have written for Zaman for another day. If it had ever occurred to me that the members of this movement will one day participate in a coup attempt, I would have never written for Zaman,” he said.
“I was mistaken because I failed to see the dark and secret face of the Gülen movement, to that, I’ll admit. I am not a terrorist. I have always been against violence and terrorism all my life.”
He also said he was not an enemy of the government, but had merely criticized its policies after 2011.
No evidence against suspects
Many suspects in the trial — journalists and financial or advertising staff alike — said they weren’t sure what the indictment accuses them of. Mustafa Ünal, another former columnist, said “I have been under arrest for 500 days. I don’t know why I am under arrest. I am not a terrorist. I have written thousands of articles. I haven’t uttered a single word in favor of a coup. I am not a member of a terrorist organisation. If you claim the contrary, you should prove it.”
Columnist Ali Bulaç said: “That I wrote for Zaman is shown as an element of crime, there is no other evidence.”
Another Mümtazer Türköne, “Many people here don’t have any idea what they are accused of. The articles presented here can only be presented in my favor as each of them contained arguments against coups and for democracy.”
Both Bulaç and Türköne had been with Zaman for a very long time and both are well known writers.
İbrahim Karayeğen, a former editor said, “I don’t know what I am accused of. I can only make guesses. I worked as a night shift editor at Zaman for 12 years. I wasn’t an executive, I had no say on editorial policy. I understand that it is journalism on trial here. Journalism is not a crime,” he said.
Mehmet Özdemir: “I have been a journalist for 20 years. I haven’t done anything else. There is no evidence against me in the indictment, and nor can there be any. Because there is no crime.”
Defendants Şeref Yıldız, Onur Kutlu, İsmail Küçük and Hüseyin Belli, who were imprisoned for accepting old vehicles in return for premium payments owed by Zaman, also asked for their acquittal. Kutlu, Küçük and Belli were released in the court’s interim ruling.
The next hearing will be heard on 5 April 2018. [/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 3,700 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]
12 Dec 17 | Events, Volume 46.04 Winter 2017 Extras
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Welcome 2018 by celebrating the power of protest at the launch of the latest Index on Censorship magazine.”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96748″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Join Index on Censorship and Bishopsgate Institute, home to one of London’s most inspiring radical history collections, as we get crafty with a free workshop celebrating the power of protest.
Led by artist Patrick Bullock, we’ll be creating protest objects inspired by some of the original Suffragette campaigning materials, looking at colours, slogans and aesthetics and exploring the importance of the right to protest and its impact on freedom of expression.
The workshop is part of the launch of the latest Index on Censorship magazine, looking at how now, more than ever, our right to assembly is under threat.
After the workshop, join us for the official launch celebration – more details and registration here.
By registering for this workshop you agree for Index on Censorship to share your contact details with Bishopsgate Institute.
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
When: Monday 29 January, 2-6pm GMT
Where: Bishopsgate Institute 230 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 4QH
Tickets: Free. Registration required via Eventbrite.
[/vc_column_text][/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%20|||”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, the summer 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores the 50th anniversary of 1968, the year the world took to the streets, to look at all aspects related to protest.
With: Micah White, Robert McCrum, Ariel Dorfman, Anuradha Roy and more.[/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.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
12 Dec 17 | Events, Volume 46.04 Winter 2017 Extras
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Welcome 2018 by celebrating the power of protest at the launch of the latest Index on Censorship magazine.”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96748″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]In partnership with Bishopsgate Institute, home to one of London’s most inspiring radical history collections, we will be exploring the importance of protest and how, now more than ever, our right to protest is under threat.
Magazine editor Rachael Jolley will introduce the magazine in the context of 2018, which is also the anniversary of two watershed moments for the power of protest: 1918, when women over 30 finally were able to vote in Britain; and 1968, the year protest swept across the globe to challenge military and bureaucratic elites.
Bishopsgate Institute’s Special Collections and Archives Manager Stefan Dickers will lead us on a journey into the stories behind some of the archive’s most fascinating protest objects — from wetsuits to soup tins — as well as viewing some of the original Suffragette sashes and campaigning materials. Artist Patrick Bullock will take us through a game about expressing our (protest) rights. There will also be a performance, introduced by Thea Vigne, from protest choir Raised Voices.
Our special guest for the evening is the campaigner Peter Tatchell, speaking on why defending the right to protest is so essential — here in the UK and internationally — and how protest can have impact.
There will be a pop-up cash and card bar.
Ahead of the event, join us in the afternoon for a free workshop as we get crafty – more details and registration here.
With thanks to our event partners Bishopsgate Institute and publishers SAGE Publishing.
By registering for this event you agree for Index on Censorship to share your contact details with Bishopsgate Institute.
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
When: Monday 29 January, 6:30-9 pm
Where: Bishopsgate Institute 230 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 4QH
Tickets: Free. Registration required via Eventbrite.
[/vc_column_text][/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%20|||”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, the summer 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine explores the 50th anniversary of 1968, the year the world took to the streets, to look at all aspects related to protest.
With: Micah White, Robert McCrum, Ariel Dorfman, Anuradha Roy and more.[/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.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Dec 17 | News and features, Volume 46.04 Winter 2017
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Fifty years after 1968, the year of protests, increasing attacks on the right to assembly must be addressed says Rachael Jolley”][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]
Close to where I live is a school named after an important protester of his age, John Ball. Ball was the co-leader of the 14th century Peasants’ Revolt, which looked for better conditions for the English poor and took to the streets to make that point. Masses walked from Kent to the edges of London, where Ball preached to the crowds. He argued against the poor being told where they could and couldn’t live, against being told what jobs they were allowed to pursue, and what they were allowed to wear. His basic demands were more equality, and more opportunity, a fairly modern message.
For challenging the status quo, Ball was put on trial and then put to death.
These protesters saw the right to assembly as a method for those who were not in power to speak out against the conditions in which they were expected to live and taxes they were expected to pay. In most countries today protest is still just that; a method of calling for change that people hope and believe will make life better.
However, in the 21st century the UK authorities, thankfully, do not believe protesters should be put to death for asserting their right to debate something in public, to call for laws to be modified or overturned, or for ridiculing a government decision.
Sadly though this basic right, the right to protest, is under threat in democracies, as well as, less surprisingly, in authoritarian states.
Fifty years after 1968, a year of significant protests around the world, is a good moment to take stock of the ways the right to assembly is being eroded and why it is worth fighting for.
In those 50 years have we become lazier about speaking out about our rights or dissatisfactions? Do we just expect the state to protect our individual liberties? Or do we just feel this basic democratic right is not important?
Most of the big leaps forward in societies have not happened without a struggle. The fall of dictatorships in Latin America, the end of apartheid, the right of women to vote, and more recently gay marriage, have partly come about because the public placed pressure on their governments by publicly showing dissatisfaction about the status quo. In other words, public protests were part of the story of major social change, and in doing so challenged those in power to listen.
Rigid and deferential societies, such as China, do not take kindly to people gathering in the street and telling the grand leaders that they are wrong. And with China racheting up its censorship and control, it’s no wonder that protesters risk punishment for public protest.
[/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=”Protecting protest is vital, even if it doesn’t feel important today. ” 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]
But it is not just China where the right to protest is not being protected. Our special report on the UK discovers that public squares in Bristol and other major cities are being handed over to private companies to manage for hundreds of years, giving away basic democratic rights like freedom of speech and assembly without so much as a backwards glance.
Leading legal academics revealed to Index that it was impossible to track this shift of public spaces into private hands in detail, as it was not being mapped as it would in other Western countries. As councils shrug off their responsibilities for historic city squares that have been at the centre of shaping those cities, they are also lightly handing over their responsibilities for public democracy, for the right to assembly and for local powers to be challenged.
The Bristol Alliance, which already controls one central shopping district with a 250-year lease, is now seeking to take over two central thoroughfares as part of a 100,000-square-metre deal (see page 15). And the people who are deciding to hand them over are elected representatives.
In the USA, where a similar shift has happened with private companies taking over the management of town squares, the right to protest and to free speech has, in many cases, been protected as part of the deal. But in the UK those hard-fought-for rights are being thrown away.
Another significant anniversary in 2018 is the centenary of the right to vote for British women over 30. That right came after decades of protests. Those suffragettes, if they were alive today, would not look kindly on English city councils who are giving away the rights of their ancestors to assemble and argue in public arenas.
For a swift lesson in why defending the right to assembly is vital, look to Duncan Tucker’s report on how protesters in Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil are facing increasing threats, tear gas and prison, just for publicly criticising those governments.
In Venezuela, where there are increasing food and medicine shortages, as well as escalating inflation, legislation is being introduced to criminalise protest.
As Tucker details on page 27 and 28, Mexican authorities have passed or submitted at least 17 local and federal initiatives to regulate demonstrations in the past three years.
Those in power across these countries are using these new laws to target minorities and those with the least power, as is typically the case throughout history. When the mainstream middle class take part in protest, the police often respond less dramatically. The lesson here is that throughout the centuries freedom of expression and freedom of assembly have been used to challenge deference and the elite, and are vital tools in our defences against corruption and authoritarianism. Protecting protest is vital, even if it doesn’t feel important today. Tomorrow when it is gone, it could well be too late.
But it is not all bad news. We are also seeing the rise of extreme creativity in bringing protests to a whole new audience in 2017. From photos of cow masks in India to satirical election posters from the Two-Tailed Dog Party in Hungary, new techniques have the power to use dangerous levels of humour and political satire to hit the pressure points of politicians. These clever and powerful techniques have shown protest is not a dying art, but it can come back and bite the powers that be on the bum in an expected fashion. And that’s to be celebrated in 2018, a year which remembers all things protest.
Finally, don’t miss our amazing exclusive this issue, a brand new short story by the award-winning writer Ariel Dorfman, who imagines a meeting between Shakespeare and Cervantes, two of his heroes.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachael Jolley is the editor of Index on Censorship magazine.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”91582″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228808534472″][vc_custom_heading text=”Uruguay 1968-88″ font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228808534472|||”][vc_column_text]June 1988
In 1968 she was a student and a political activist; in 1972 she was arrested, tortured and held for four years; then began the years of exile.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”94296″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228108533158″][vc_custom_heading text=”The girl athlete” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228108533158|||”][vc_column_text]February 1981
Unable to publish his work in Prague since the cultural freeze following the Soviet invasion in 1968, Ivan Klíma, has his short story published by Index. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”91220″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422017716062″][vc_custom_heading text=”Cement protesters” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422017716062|||”][vc_column_text]June 2017
Protesters casting their feet in concrete are grabbing attention in Indonesia and inspiring other communities to challenge the government using new tactics.[/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.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Dec 17 | Malta, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Doughty Street Chambers has surfaced concerns about the investigation being carried out by Maltese authorities into the death of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a journalist, writer and anti-corruption activist murdered on 16 October when her car exploded.
In its urgent legal advice to the family of Galizia, Doughty Street Chambers, an international specialist law firm, raised issues around the independence of the investigation, which they said was in a “clear and serious breach of Article 2” of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees an effective investigation.
Doughty Street barristers Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jonathan Price said “we are of the firm view that Malta is in flagrant violation of the Article 2 investigative duty and thus in breach of its obligations under the ECHR”, and that “from the information available at this stage it appears highly likely to us that the Maltese authorities have also violated other human rights of Ms Caruana Galizia and the bereaved family, under Articles 2, 3, 8, 10 and/ or 13 ECHR (and indeed under other international human rights treaties and domestic law).”
A further requirement of Article 2 is that the investigation should safeguard the legitimate interests of the next of kin. However, Galizia’s family members have been learning of key developments through grossly inappropriate channels: Twitter accounts belonging to politicians and news headlines.
“The advice from leading legal experts confirms that Malta is in breach of its obligations under European law to investigate the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia thoroughly and fairly”, said Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy at Index on Censorship. “The advice raises extremely serious questions about the Maltese police, and Index believes that external, independent investigators must be appointed urgently.”
The lawyers called for swift action to be taken by the authorities in Malta to immediately remove the deputy commissioner from his role and to apologise to the family “for the failure to appropriately update and involve them in the investigation, and alter the way in which information is provided to them to comply with Article 2’s requirements.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1512749485797-9de444c0-8566-10″ taxonomies=”18781, 18782″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Dec 17 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Fellowship, Fellowship 2017, Statements, Turkey, Turkey Letters
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Alp Toker and Isik Mater of Digital Activism Award-winning Turkey Blocks at the 2017 Freedom of Expression Awards (Photo: Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship)
“We send a unified message to those who seek to silence independent voices: as long as freedom of expression and digital rights are not safeguarded, our mission will continue and we will persist.” – Alp Toker, co-founder Turkey Blocks, 2017 Digital Activism Fellow
Silence is the oppressor’s friend. Targeting those who speak out against corruption and injustice is the favoured tool of those who seek to crush dissent. Don’t let the bullies win – help us champion the people who are fighting back. People like Freedom of Expression Awards fellows Turkey Blocks.
With your help, each year we are able to support writers, journalists and artists at the free speech front line – wherever they are in the world – through Index Fellowships. These remarkable individuals risk their freedom, their families and even their lives to speak out against injustice, censorship and threats to free expression.
I am writing now to ask you to support the Index Fellows. Your donation provides the support and recognition these outstanding individuals need to ensure their voices are heard despite the restrictions under which they are forced to live and work.
Your support will help winners like Turkey Blocks, who continue to work hard to track and battle internet outages around the world, trying to ensure that they “make technology a force for good” says Alp Toker, founder.
The team, working under the new name Net Blocks, have most recently been developing a new tool COST, which calculates the financial impact of mass-censorship, “a very powerful method for convincing governments not to censor content”. Index will help them to launch COST in 2018. Meanwhile, in a “quite historic” meeting, they sat down with the internet blocking authority of Turkey. “I think that it’s just great that we’re able to have some dialogue, because things in Turkey are very polarized right now. Normally it’s like oil and water—you can’t even exist in the same space” says Toker.
Alp Toker says the Index Awards Fellowship has made them feel “valued, recognised and befriended” and co-founder Isik Mater says “I can feel that if something bad happens to me or my colleagues, Index will be there to support us”.
I hope you will consider showing your support for free speech and the Index Fellows. A gift of £500 would support professional psychological assistance for a fellow; a gift of £100 helps them travel to speak at more public events. A gift of £50 helps us to be available for them 24/7. You can make your donation online now.
Please give what you can in the fight against censorship in 2018. Make your voice heard so that others can do the same.
Thank you for your support.
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO
P.S. The 2018 Index on Censorship awards will be held in April. To find out more about the awards including previous winners, please visit: https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/awards
Index on Censorship is an international charity that promotes and defends the right to free expression. We publish the work of censored writers, journalists and artists, and monitor, and campaign against, censorship worldwide.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1512726349609-d7244289-6e40-2″ taxonomies=”9034″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
07 Dec 17 | Academic Freedom, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96838″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]A group of court reporters scurried along the halls of Istanbul’s massive Çağlayan Courthouse on the morning of 7 December, taking pictures of the tables showing the trial schedules of several high criminal courts to share them with other reporters make sure that none of the sessions of the day go unreported. There were too many trials, but too few reporters interested.
The journalists — all from the dwindling critical media of Turkey — were there to cover the trials of dozens of academics who will be tried by İstanbul’s 33rd, 34rth and 35th High Criminal Courts in the coming weeks and months. The academics are accused of having disseminated “propaganda on behalf of a terror organization,” when, in 2016 January, they signed a petition calling on the Turkish government to put an end to security forces’ operations in the predominantly Kurdish southeast of the country, where many alleged human rights violations — including deaths of civilians — took place under curfews declared in the region.
So far 148 people have been formally indicted, but a total of 1,128 academics signed the document, called the “Peace Petition” by its supporters. Nearly 500 of the “academics for peace” were expelled from university jobs with cabinet decrees issued under Turkey’s state of emergency declared after the failed coup attempt of July 2016. Nobody knows the exact number of those who left the country, to flee not the investigations against them and legal troubles as much, but the ever stifling and increasingly darker academic climate.
Only four academics — who were imprisoned between March and April 2016 for reading out the petition publicly– have so far been tried. The trials into the rest of the academics began on 6 December, with 10 academics appearing before a judge. One of them, Osman Olcay Kural, an academic from the Galatasaray University, has no regrets. “I am very glad that we signed that petition. I am thinking that we should have done it before,” he said, adding: “I will take this one step further. I don’t think anybody on that list regrets having signed the petition. If there are any, it has to be out of fear. They were frightened badly.”
And he is right. Some academics — although only a few — announced taking their signatures back after universities started investigating them back in early 2016. “And that, I respect,” Kural says. “People have children to take care of and bills to pay. It is the circumstances that have put them in this situation I regret.”
As the first academic to go on trial, Kural might have also inadvertently set the tone for the rest of the academic trials. The court hearing his trial rejected a request from Kural’s lawyer to try his client under Turkish Penal Code Article 301 — “denigrating Turkishness, the Republic and State agencies and organs,” which was the main accusation in the trial of the four academics who were tried earlier. The trial was adjourned until 12 April next year.
What about the others?
If there were 1,128 people who signed the petition, and if most of them are possibly all of them were investigated, then why have only 148 cases have been opened so far?
“Because the prosecutors chose to try them one by one. The text they are using in the indictments is the same; a single case could have been launched,” says Veysel Ok, a lawyer, who currently represents dozens of journalists and several of the peace academics. He, understandably, expects that number to go up in the coming days.
Attorney Ok says the “terror propaganda” and “denigrating Turkish state organs” accusations are vastly different in nature because a 301 conviction is better as it is not a terror crime. How can it be possible for a prosecutor to consider one in place of the other? “There is absolutely no legal explanation for this,” he says. “There is no incitement to terrorism or violence in that petition. For terror propaganda, such incitement is a requirement. To the contrary, the academics’ text wishes for peace. There is absolutely no legal basis for that accusation.”
Productivity in difficult times
“They are trying to make up a crime out of the petition,” agrees Emre Tansu Keten, a peace academic who was expelled from his position as a research assistant at Marmara University with a cabinet decree in February 2017. “This petition doesn’t fit either terror propaganda or 301.”
Keten, like the rest of the signers of the petition, will soon be on trial. However, like Kunal, he is unfazed by the government’s reaction. “As a political individual, I can’t say I was really shocked or that I went through an emotional breakdown when I was expelled,” he laughs.
Out of his university job, he keeps busy, “I work at a publisher as an editor, I am continuing on with my academic studies. I do a lot for [Turkish education professionals’ union] Eğitim-Sen, there is much to be done there.”
For many “peace academics” — and others under pressure in Turkey, such as journalists or rights activists — the unusually difficult times the country is going through need not put life on hold. So much has happened over the past few years: alliances forged by the government that were never expected to be broken have shattered; ministers have been listed as defendants in foreign courts; hundreds of civil servants, judiciary members, soldiers, police officers have been expelled or jailed; scores of President Erdoğan loyalists have fallen from grace and heads of mayors from the government party have rolled (of course, figuratively speaking, at least for now) over the upsetting results of a referendum that the government actually won. Yet, none of this has stopped the core of opposition in Turkey and people like Keten — who is also busy these days working on the final chapters of his doctoral thesis — have continued their prolific work.
When the tide turns, something good might even come out all of this.
“There has been a search for an alternative academia for more than a decade in Turkey,” Keten says. “We, the academics of solidarity, are teaching alternative classes in Ankara, İzmir and Eskişehir. There are other journals and serious publishing houses where we can write and be published.”
“To a certain extent, these policies of intimidation have worked,” he added. “Many [who signed the] peace petitions have left the country, but there is also a group which has, over the past two years, created a foundation for a struggle. There are those who have stayed, and who are working to change things. And that, gives, hope.”[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”96839″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/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 3,597 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=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1512654177455-eea84219-c45f-10″ taxonomies=”55, 8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
06 Dec 17 | Campaigns -- Featured, European Union, Statements, Turkey, Turkey Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96937″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]PEN International, PEN Belgium/Flanders,the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Article 19,the Association of European Journalists (AEJ), the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ),the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ),the Global Editors Network (GEN), Index on Censorship, the International Press Institute (IPI), American PEN, Danish PEN, English PEN, Norwegian PEN, Wales PEN Cymru, Reporters without Borders (RSF),and the South East Europe Media Organization (SEEMO), welcome the opportunity to deliver this statement.
Working collectively, both jointly and separately, we have an established body of work on freedom of expression in Turkey, in part predating the attempted coup but intensifying since July 2016. Coming from the findings and concerns that have emerged through our work, on this occasion, we have developed four specific requests to the EU, its institutions including the European Parliament, and its Member States:
First, we call on the EU, its Institutions and its Member States to duly implement the EU Guidelines on Freedom of Expression and EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and to live up the high expectations that were raised therein. Among other things, in the context of Turkey this will entail doing more to end the indiscriminate abuse of criminal legal proceedings against journalists and writers; calling more actively for an end to abusive state of emergency measures that impinge on human rights; and, advocating against restrictive legislation shrinking the space for civil society and human rights defenders. These concerns should be put from and centre not only in political dialogues and during high level visits, but also play a more prominent role when revisiting economic, trade and other agreements between the EU, its Member States and Turkey. Further, we believe the EU and its Member States should be more active when it comes to monitoring and condemning human rights violations.
Second, civil society is under attack in Turkey, and the space for civil society actors and human rights defenders is shrinking. Beyond the immediate impact on activists who are judicially or otherwise persecuted, the Turkish authorities’ actions are also having a chilling effect on actors who for now have remained outside its crosshairs. We call on the EU and its Member States to continue and expand its support to Turkish civil society, both politically and financially .[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
We call on the EU, its Institutions and its Member States to duly implement the EU Guidelines on Freedom of Expression and EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and to live up the high expectations that were raised therein.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Third, it is our view that Turkey has been abusing INTERPOL’s Red Notice system to attempt to extend internationally its persecution of journalists, writers and others for having exercised peacefully their right to freedom of expression and opinion. The number of Red Notice requests emanating from Turkey has dramatically increased, and while under INTERPOL’s Constitution human rights must be respected in its operations and interventions of a political character are strictly prohibited, we believe that Turkey has been abusing the system in pursuit of nefarious political objectives.
Accordingly, we call on the EU and its Member States to:
- Refrain from carrying out arrests on the basis of Red Notices coming from Turkey when there are serious concerns that they may be abusive; and,
- Make use of their influence within INTERPOL to push for reforms of the INTERPOL system, including strengthening preventative checks before Red Notices are circulated, strengthening its appeals system, and compensating victims of abusive Red Notices.
Fourth, considering the many fair trial violations we have observed throughout our trial monitoring as well as the many other human rights violations committed by the Turkish authorities since the state of emergency was declared, the role of the European Court of Human Rights in ensuring justice for victims has become ever more important. Especially at a time when the Council of Europe’s human rights system is under pressure , emanating from actions or lack thereof by both EU and non-EU Member States. At the same time, even when duly taking into account the political and financial restraints placed onto the Council of Europe, it appears too deferential towards Turkey.
Accordingly, we call on the EU and its Member States to:
- Use their influence within the Council of Europe and urge them to be less deferential towards Turkey; and,
- Play a positive and guiding role with a view to implementing and strengthening the EU’s and the Council of Europe’s shared commitments to democracy and human rights.
As international civil society actors, we are ready to contribute our expertise to constructive efforts by the EU and its Member States to support persecuted journalists and writers in Turkey and to improve the situation for freedom of expression in the country.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1513177371551-353126c9-b329-9″ taxonomies=”55″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
06 Dec 17 | Digital Freedom, News and features, Youth Board
Each youth advisory board sits for six months, has the chance to participate in monthly video conferencing discussions about current freedom of expression issues from around the world and the opportunity to write blog posts on Index’s website.
The next youth board is currently being recruited. The next youth advisory board will sit from January to June 2018.
We are looking for enthusiastic young people, aged between 16-25, who must be committed to taking part in monthly meetings, which are held online with fellow participants. Applicants can be based anywhere in the world. We are looking for people who are communicative and who will be in regular touch with Index.
Applications include:
- Cover letter
- CV
- 250-word blog post about any free speech issue
Applications can be submitted to Danyaal Yasin at [email protected]. The deadline for applications is 10 January at 11:59pm GMT.
What is the youth advisory board?
The youth board is a specially selected group of young people aged 16-25 who will advise and inform Index on Censorship’s work, support our ambition to fight for free expression around the world and ensure our engagement with issues with tomorrow’s leaders.
Why does Index have a youth board?
Index on Censorship is committed to fighting censorship not only now, but also in future generations, and we want to ensure that the realities and challenges experienced by young people in today’s world are properly reflected in our work.
Index is also aware that there are many who would like to commit some or all of their professional lives to fighting for human rights and the youth board is our way of supporting the broadest range of young people to develop their voice, find paths to freely expressing it and potential future employment in the human rights, media and arts sectors.
What does the youth board do?
Board members meet once a month via Zoom to discuss the most pressing freedom of expression issues. During the meeting members will be given a monthly task to complete. There are also opportunities to get involved with events such as debates and workshops for our work with young people as well as our annual Freedom of Expression Awards and Index magazine launches.
How do people get on the youth board?
Each youth board will sit for a six-month term. Current board members are invited to reapply up to one time. The board will be selected by Index on Censorship in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with our commitment to promoting diversity. We usually recruit for board members during May and December each year. Follow @IndexCensorship on Twitter or subscribe to our Facebook feed to watch for the announcements.
Why join the Index on Censorship youth advisory board?
You will be associated with a media and human rights organisation and have the opportunity to discuss issues you feel strongly about with Index and peers from around the world. At each board meeting, we will also give you the chance to speak to someone senior within Index or the media/human rights/arts sectors, helping you to develop your knowledge and extend your personal networks. You’ll also be featured on our website.
