18 Apr 18 | Egypt, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship’s CEO Jodie Ginsberg discusses change in Egypt with activists Mohamed Sameh and Ahmad Abdullah (Photo credit: Alessio Perrone)
The opening line of Rousseau’s treatise The Social Contract reads: “Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.”
This was one of several books to feature in a book club started by Ahmad Abdallah during his four and a half months spent in prison. The co-founder of the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award nominee Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms (ECRF) was arrested without a warrant on 25 April 2016 for alleged terrorist activity.
Awoken by masked members of the special forces prodding him with a machine gun he first thought it was a prank, he recalled at an event discussing human rights in Egypt on 17 April 2018 at Doughty Street Chambers.
The worst of the worst
“I thought it was someone joking, maybe my mum, maybe my father,” he said. “But I got up and then I was afraid for my family. I was pushed by the machine gun once again and my parents were at the side of the door. Then I ask the chief of this group: ‘do you have a warrant for me?’ They showed me nothing, they searched my house and then I was detained.” They said, “what will you do if we don’t have one?”
Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg condemned the Egyptian authorities for the misuse of terror legislation to persecute peaceful critics like Abdallah and his colleague Mohamed Sameh.
Speaking to the room, Abdallah told of his continued attempts to challenge repressive ideas and the Egyptian government even while in prison.
He was shocked to be branded a terrorist. “I had nothing to do with these groups. I was jailed with some of our brotherhood and even some of ISIS. I was very afraid at this time. They are the worst of the worst,” he said.
His answer to this fear was books. “I started a book club because I was afraid of the ISIS guys,” he said.
“I was really afraid so I said: ‘OK, why don’t we start a reading club. We have plenty of time, we are in jail! You can bring your books and I can bring my books, maybe we can be more enlightened. I got them books: Rousseau’s Social Contract, literature books, Kafka, philosophy books, Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm and as one month elapsed, the ISIS guy was isolated. Everyone was against his ideas and my ideas were spreading amongst other prisoners,” the human rights defender continued.
Attendees of the seminar in group solidarity for Egypt and Shawkan, the persecuted photojournalist #mypicforshawkan (photo credit: Alessio Perrone)
As a result, Abdallah was put in solitary confinement where he was in complete darkness and without food for two days.
“Egyptians are not low rank humans. We need our fundamental rights like everyone else”
Human rights activists and journalists are systematically targeted in Egypt and, like Ahmad Abdallah, called terrorists. Jeremy Dear, representing the International Federation of Journalists at the event, informed attendees 21 journalists have been killed in the country since 2011. More than 20 have been imprisoned, half of which without charge.
Forced disappearances and media harassment
The precise numbers of those targeted are unknown, even to the ECRF. The organisation was set up in 2013 after someone came to Abdallah and Mohamed Lotfy (executive director and co-founder of ECRF) saying his friend had gone missing. This led them to question whether the disappearance was “a single event or a pattern.”
The organisation, nominated for an Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, has since worked on cases involving forced disappearance and the prevention of censorship. The government has made it increasingly difficult for them to conduct their work and their offices were raided twice last year. Their website was also blocked.
The group continues to work towards improved human rights despite the dangers. Ahmad said it is their passion and desire for change that keeps them going. “Egyptians are not low rank humans. We need our fundamental rights like everyone else,” he added.
Sameh continued: “Why do we continue? Much sacrifice has already been done. We really do love Egyptians, we really love humans, we really love our families and we think there is a better way of living, of respecting each other. The reason we keep going is because we think we can change that. I think there is serious hope that we can achieve something. We are showing these people are not left behind, that they are not forgotten.”
Peter Greste, an Al Jhazeera journalist who was imprisoned in Egypt, sent a video message of support Abdallah and Sameh. He told of how in 2014 they had been convicted under terrorist charges. Greste said: “The charges were related to the work we had been doing for Al Jhazeera English… At the time, I struggled to make sense of what they were going through, the gap which was between what they were accused of doing, joining a terrorist group, and what they were actually doing… I couldn’t understand how anyone could draw the conclusions that the prosecution… came to.”
The seminar, “Freedom of Expression and the Protection of Human Rights in Egypt,” concluded hopefully. Ginsberg from Index on Censorship posited several ways those in the room could help. This included a suggestion that media organisations each take a case and closely follow it.
She said: “I know sometimes we think we are sitting here talking and nobody’s paying attention, but actually these kind of public solidarity actions do matter. They matter to the individuals who are in detention and they also matter and bother the authorities.”
Jeremy Dear agreed, emphasising the importance of support from societies with media freedom. He said: “There’s no doubt that in the past few years the space for dissenting and independent voices has shrunk in Egypt. We have a duty to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to create the space for them and help them create their own space to raise their own voices.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ btn_shape=”square” btn_align=”center” grid_id=”vc_gid:1524045621403-609ab883-1e90-3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Apr 18 | Honduras, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”99730″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]
“The noose is tightening around the Honduran people more than ever,” says Dana Frank, professor at UC Santa Cruz, specialising in human rights and US policy in post-coup Honduras, adding that with this comes increased repression of the media.
With political turmoil and protests following the 2017 re-election of president Juan Orlando Hernández, repression of information has become commonplace in Honduras. According to Amnesty International, at least 31 people were killed in the aftermath of the election, with hundreds more arrested or detained. Reporters Without Borders ranked Honduras 140th in the 2017 World Press Freedom Index.
Journalists reporting on corruption and violence in Honduras regularly deal with violence and the risk of death for their work — including investigative journalist Wendy Funes, a nominee for Index on Censorship’s 2018 Freedom of Expression Award for Journalism — while perpetrators often go unpunished.
“What’s amazing is that corruption is highly documented. For example, the government itself and the attorney general have confirmed the evidence that as much $90 million was stolen by the ruling party and the Juan Orlando campaign in 2013 from the national health service. They siphoned it into their campaigns,” says Frank. “The evidence of corruption is out there. The problem is that the attorney general and the government don’t act on the evidence.”
According to Honduras National Commission for Human Rights, over 70 journalists and other media workers were killed in Honduras between 2001 and August of 2017. PEN International reports that violence against journalists continued despite the Honduran government’s pledge at the United Nations in May 2015 to improve its human rights record. Journalists have begun to silence themselves out of fear for their lives.
“Over the years, the situation has been deteriorating and getting worse in regards to freedom of expression,” Honduran journalist Dina Meza told Index on Censorship in February 2018. “Therefore, what journalists and social communicators have started to do is self-censor.”
As recently as 13 February 2018, one Honduran television reporter, César Omar Silva, was the victim of an attempted on-air stabbing. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Silva said that a nearby police officer and hospital worker told the man to stop but did not try to detain him or take his weapon. The attacker escaped.
This wasn’t the first time Silva was attacked for his work. He was kidnapped and tortured after he covered human rights violations around the 2009 coup.
Censorship by the government goes beyond attempting to silence journalists; it also restricts the information government agencies are allowed to release to the media and the public. A 2014 law assigned responsibility for releasing information to individual government agencies, instead of the more independent Institute for Public Access to Information. As a result, government transparency and the public’s right to information suffered.
“It really is a reign of terror. The government used live bullets against a labour strike on 9 March, and that’s new,” says Frank. “What’s amazing is that people are reclaiming democracy and going to the streets even though they know they could get killed.”
Frank echoed sentiments written by Dina Meza in a September 2013 article for Index on Censorship magazine. “In a democracy, criminal investigations would be the appropriate means to bring these culprits to justice,” said Meza, “but in what is an essentially failed state with a collapsed infrastructure, anyone who is determined to speak out risks their life.”
As journalists in Honduras face harsh censorship, those who continue to work and speak out must be supported and defended. Without this the corruption and repression in post-coup Honduras would go undocumented. [/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:1524040544190-383fec9d-ea6d-2″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
17 Apr 18 | Index in the Press
Each year Index on Censorship honours activists who have been at the forefront of tackling censorship globally. Click hears from Jodie Ginsberg about some of nominees including creators of the Museum of Dissidence in Cuba. She is joined Guy Muyembe, from Habari RDC (a collective of young Congolese bloggers), to discuss digital activism. Listen to the full podcast
17 Apr 18 | Malta, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/MhT_G6fMaY8″][vc_column_text]People gathered outside Malta House in London on Monday afternoon to remember Daphne Caruana Galizia, a Maltese journalist murdered with a car bomb six months ago.
The vigil was attended by representatives of NGOs calling on the Maltese authorities for justice.
Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders, the International Press Institute and others have signed an open letter demanding the ongoing investigation into Caruana Galizia’s death to be monitored.
“It wasn’t just one person they silenced. When you silence a journalist, you attempt to silence an entire community, an entire country,” Jodie Ginsberg, Index on Censorship CEO, said.
The investigative journalist, who wrote about corruption and human rights breaches in Malta on her blog Running Commentary, had previously received threats because of her reporting. She was branded a political enemy and her face was put on billboards around the country by the governing party. She was murdered on 16 October 2017.
Many of the investigations she was pursuing before her murder are being taken up by journalists around the world who will publish the corruption she worked to expose.
Matthew and Paul Caruana Galizia, two of the journalist’s sons, who attended the vigil, emphasised the importance of ongoing support and said the event was “almost like another funeral because we’ve hit the six-month mark”.
Excerpts from Caruana Galizia’s writing were read out and sprigs of bay leaves, “Daphne” in ancient greek, were held by attendees. Chants of “Justice for Daphne, no more impunity” were directed at Malta House.
Ravi Prasad, head of advocacy at the International Press Institute in Vienna, was at the memorial. He is outraged at the government of Malta for superficially bandaging the issue instead of investigating properly.
“They have arrested some people but these are not the perpetrators, the actual masterminds behind the murder,” he said. “They’re trying to blame others. It’s a classic example of impunity. This is intolerable. Most of these journalists are not killed because they are covering a conflict. They were murdered for exposing corruption.”
The Director of Free Press Unlimited, Leon Willems, represented the Dutch free press organisation. The organisation, Willems told Index on Censorship, is “extremely concerned about the growing impunity with which attacks on journalists take place all over Europe. We think the case of Daphne Caruana Galizia is a case in point where we see that in spite of all the efforts, nothing much is happening and there are no real consequences.”
He added: “We think that is a grave danger to journalism and Europe and we are very concerned about the current trend.”
Holding vigils of this kind is faced with much opposition in Malta. A memorial to Daphne in front of the law courts in Valetta was recently removed. Tina Urso, activist at Il-Kenniesa, has helped organise six memorial services around the world for Caruana Galizia. She says the police in Malta find a way of shutting down the events and that “people are getting really scared.” But the anti-corruption activist believes that international voices are crucial in getting the attention of the authorities. She said: “When it comes to international pressure we know that it really bothers them and we know that they pay attention.”
The vigil was followed by a discussion of the case at the House of Commons on Monday evening. [/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”99687″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_single_image image=”99685″ img_size=”full”][/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:1523984883608-cb153aa9-5de4-5″ taxonomies=”18782″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
17 Apr 18 | Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”99700″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Fifty-three Commonwealth heads of government are meeting for a summit in London this week. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the UK Minister of State for the Commonwealth, lauded it as a unique network of 53 states with a responsibility to exert global influence based on a shared commitment to democracy, the rule of law and good governance as enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter of 2013.
But the record of Commonwealth countries concerning the rising number of killings of journalists — whose work holds a mirror up to the societies they live in – points to a dismal failure by the authorities in some member states to protect the lives of journalists targeted for their work. UN statistics also show that in all but a few cases the killers are shielded from facing justice by a climate of judicial impunity. Where is the rule of law in that?
In the five years from the start of 2013 to the end of 2017 as many as 57 journalists in Commonwealth countries were killed in the course of their work, according to UNESCO, the UN’s agency with a mandate to promote freedom of expression.
Most were killed to stop them from publishing reports into abuses of power, crime or corruption, often linked to public figures or law-enforcement officials. Among the recent shocking murders of journalists are those of editor and journalist Gauri Lankesh, shot outside her home in Bangalore, India last September, and Daphne Caruana Galizia, Malta’s best-known investigative journalist, killed in a car bombing one month later.
Yes, Commonwealth countries like India have pioneered some of the world’s most liberal Right to Information laws, and all member states are publicly committed to democratic standards including the separation of powers, independent courts and the rule of law.
Yet Commonwealth governments have evaded the chorus of demands for them to take determined actions to confront the pattern of violent assaults and other arbitrary actions aimed at silencing journalists and news media whose role is to inform the public. The London summit is the right time for them to put this on their agenda.
Luckily the Commonwealth has vigorous civil society organisations which already monitor cases of violence and intimidation against journalists and others who document abuses of civil and political rights. The Commonwealth Charter gives a mandate for strong action – despite the reluctance of some member states — by acknowledging the ‘surge in popular demands for democracy and human rights’.
UNESCO’s figures give this revealing breakdown of the 57 killings of journalists in Commonwealth countries in the five years up to the end of 2017: Pakistan 23, India 18, Bangladesh 8, Nigeria 3, and one each in Kenya, Malta, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.
Even more troubling, perhaps, is the picture that emerges from UNESCO’s records on the lack of effective judicial follow-ups in countries where journalists have been killed. The figures are based on states’ replies, made on a voluntary basis, to requests for information made by the Director-General of UNESCO after every verified killing.
The latest official report published by the Director-General of UNESCO recorded state authorities’ responses to killings of journalists during the ten-year period from 2006 to 2015. In that decade 104 journalists were killed in eight Commonwealth (including 9 journalists killed during Sri Lanka’s civil war up to 2009). Those statistics — based on information supplied by the governments concerned — fail to record a single case in which the perpetrators were brought to justice. Not one.
The figures are incomplete because too many states routinely fail to send back information about prosecutions, despite persistent requests from the Director-General of UNESCO. Further research shows that a handful of journalists’ killings in Commonwealth states have led to successful prosecutions – for example, in the cases of TV journalist Wali Khan Babar, killed in Pakistan in 2013, and Gautam Das, a Bangladeshi crime reporter killed in 2005.
A first step towards building confidence would be for all Commonwealth states to pledge to open investigations into the scores of unresolved cases and report any progress to the UN.
Journalists are only one of many categories of people who may face violence or persecution in Commonwealth countries, with all their diversity and ethnic and political tensions. But half a dozen United Nations resolutions adopted since 2012 have recognised that journalists face special dangers because of their work and deserve protection in order to counter corruption and abuses of democratic rights.
In advance of the London summit a coalition of grassroots Commonwealth professional organisations has come together to urge government leaders at the summit to face up to this stain on the organisation’s record. The Commonwealth Journalists Association joins the Commonwealth’s impressive networks of lawyers, legal educators, parliamentarians, academics and human rights advocates in putting forward a balanced and practical set of Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance.
The Principles are written guidelines for democratic rules of engagement, so to speak, between the media and the parliament, judiciary and executive. The Principles will not be legally binding as Commonwealth states have made clear that would be anathema to them. But can at least serve as a manual of good practice to move the countries of the Commonwealth towards ending the scourge of impunity and fulfilling their public commitment to protect the media’s right to report on public affairs.
The heads of government meeting in London’s royal palaces this week should realise that if the Commonwealth cannot be part of the solution it may well be part of the problem.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-share-alt” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]The Commonwealth Principles on freedom of expression and the role of the media in good governance was published on April 11. The signatory organisations are the CJA, the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Commonwealth Legal Education Association, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK.[/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:1523956946253-7cccb26e-7266-2″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Apr 18 | Press Releases
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Marking the six month anniversary of the assassination of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who had numerous vexatious lawsuits against her at the time of her murder, Index on Censorship has launched a campaign to raise awareness about the use of legal threats to silence journalists and activists
Around the world, big business and corrupt politicians are using threats of legal action to silence journalists and other critics — including NGOs and activists.
Usually this starts with a letter threatening expensive proceedings unless online articles are rewritten or removed altogether, and demanding an agreement not to publish anything similar in the future. The letters often tell the recipient that they cannot even report the fact that they have received the letter.
This process is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). SLAPPs are designed to intimidate and silence critics by burdening defendants with huge legal costs. The purpose of SLAPPs is not to win the case. They are vexatious and are designed to eat up time and resources. They are a way to harass and intimidate journalists and others and dissuade them from reporting.
SLAPP suits are a particular problem for independent media outlets and other small organisations. They are financially draining and can take years to process. Faced with the threat of a lengthy litigation battle and expensive legal fees, many who receive SLAPPs are simply forced into silence.
Index CEO Jodie Ginsberg said: “We believe that by encouraging journalists and media outlets to talk more openly about these threats, we can begin to put an end to the use of these vexatious lawsuits that threaten democracy.”
Today, Index has published a four-step fact sheet for journalists and organisations that aims to educate them about the steps they can take to protect themselves from this type of threat.
More information about the campaign can be found here.
For more information, please contact Sean Gallagher at [email protected][/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:1523883932080-5dce41f2-226c-8″ taxonomies=”5692″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Apr 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Maltese investigative journalist who was assassinated in October 2017, had numerous lawsuits pending at the time of her murder.
Around the world, big business and corrupt politicians are using threats of legal action to silence journalists and other critics — including NGOs and activists.
Usually this starts with a letter threatening expensive proceedings unless online articles are rewritten or removed altogether, and demanding an agreement not to publish anything similar in the future. The letters often tell the recipient that they cannot even report the fact that they have received the letter.
This process is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). SLAPPs are designed to intimidate and silence critics by burdening defendants with huge legal costs. The purpose of SLAPPs is not to win the case. They are vexatious and are designed to eat up time and resources. They are a way to harass and intimidate journalists and others and dissuade them from reporting.
SLAPP suits are a particular problem for independent media outlets and other small organisations. They are financially draining and can take years to process. Faced with the threat of a lengthy litigation battle and expensive legal fees, many who receive SLAPPs are simply forced into silence.
Don’t let them silence you
Index believes that by encouraging journalists and media outlets to talk more openly about these threats, we can begin to put an end to the use of these vexatious lawsuits that threaten democracy.
We support an initiative by members of the European Parliament for a new directive to tackle SLAPPs.
We also know that getting such changes takes time. But it can be done. In the United States, 34 states have enacted laws to combat SLAPPs. California, which adopted its anti-SLAPP legislation in 2009, enables defendants to sue the original plaintiff for malicious prosecution or abuse of process.
In 2015 Canada passed the Protection of Public Participation Act, which aimed to implement a fast-track review process to identify and end vexatious lawsuits.
In the meantime, there are some steps that all journalists can take to help put an end to this practice.
1. Know you are not alone
Journalists from Albania to Japan have received such letters. In Malta, for example, The Shift News website received a letter late last year from law firm Henley and Partners demanding an article be removed. Henley and Partners also stated that the letter was not to be made public.
Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Maltese investigative journalist who was assassinated in October 2017, had numerous lawsuits pending at the time of her murder. She was being sued by Pilatus Bank, a Maltese-based financial institution she frequently criticised. The lawsuit was filed in the USA and dropped following the killing.
Other Maltese media groups, faced with legal threats, have complied with Pilatus Bank’s requests, and deleted and amended articles in their online archives. Pilatus denies any wrongdoing.
In the UK, Appleby, the firm associated with the Paradise Papers, is threatening legal action against the Guardian and the BBC, demanding they disclose any of the six million Appleby documents that informed their reporting and seeking damages for the disclosure of what it says are confidential legal documents.
2. Tell others if you receive a letter
Speak to someone you trust. This could be a colleague at your place of work, your local union or a representative from a nonprofit organisation working in your country or region. Nonprofit organisations and others working in the field of journalist safety include:
Article 19
Committee to Protect Journalists
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
European Federation of Journalists
International Press Institute
Index on Censorship
Reporters Without Borders
SEEMO
A major fear when receiving a SLAPP letter from a large law firm can be a sinking feeling that you might indeed have something wrong with your story. This casts a long shadow of self-doubt and can prevent journalists even from discussing the letters with each other within the same newsroom.
If you receive these legal threats, discuss them with journalists from other publications who are working on similar stories. This is often the only way to find out that the subject of your investigations is trying to shut down the public discussion systematically. “Discovering that pattern is not only a story in itself, but critically important in helping journalists work together to defend themselves,” says investigative reporter Matthew Caruana Galizia.
3. Report it
If you work in one of the countries covered by the project, you should report such threats to the Index on Censorship Mapping Media Freedom platform, which documents threats to media freedom. Index works with other organisations to raise the worst cases with the Council of Europe so that the council can raise cases directly with the governments concerned.
When you document these threats on Mapping Media Freedom, you help to show that they exist and are a problem for journalists and the public, who are robbed of their right to know. Once we have that documentary evidence, we can push harder for a change in legislation. We believe that the number of threats would speak for themselves, if everyone in the countries we cover reported them.
4. Know your rights
Get expert legal advice but remember that not all lawyers are the same. There are lawyers who are experienced in dealing with SLAPPs. For example, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom has a legal team that can advise on SLAPP lawsuits and Doughty Street Chambers has an International Media Defence Panel who regularly assist journalists and NGOs faced with these kinds of threats.
Have you received a SLAPP letter? Let us know. Spreading the word about this cases is important in tackling the problem. The more we can document the extent of this issue, the easier it will be to address it. Please let us know by contacting Joy Hyvarinen, Head of Advocacy, at [email protected]. [/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:1523875014232-cb75410f-355e-4″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Apr 18 | Index in the Press
Eight vigils around the world, including Malta, Berlin and Washington DC, will be held on Monday 16 April, commemorating six months since the death of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. Read the full article.
16 Apr 18 | Index in the Press
In the spring issue of the Index on Censorship magazine, we interviewed Aasim Saaed, who was kidnapped and held in captivity for 21 days last year. He said his kidnapping departed from the past because it was carried out by state forces, rather than the more commonplace accomplices – extremists. Read the full article.
16 Apr 18 | News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]For Turkish academics, signing a dissenting petition can mean expulsion from their job, the country or even jail time. In Noémi Lévy-Aksu’s case, signing the Academics for Peace petition, “We will not be a party to this crime!” meant losing her teaching position at Boğaziçi University.
In March 2017, Lévy-Aksu had flown from London to Turkey to take an exam to become an associate professor. After the exam, she flew back to London to continue her fellowship at the British Academy with an affiliation with Birkbeck College. However, two days later she received an email saying she had been dismissed from her teaching position at Boğaziçi. Following the news of her work and residence permit cancellation, she was notified that she had passed her associate professor exam. In April, she became a Turkish citizen after applying for citizenship in January 2016.
The confusing whirlwind of events left Lévy-Aksu jobless with Turkish citizenship and associate professor credentials. Her story is far from unique as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has increased his government’s squeeze on dissenting voices — whether journalistic, legal or academic.
While best known for the January 2016 “We will not be a party to this crime!” petition, Academics for Peace advocates for peace between Kurds and Turks and condemns government violations of its own and international laws. The organisation, which formed in 2012, is an amalgamation of academics from over 50 universities.
With over 2,000 signatures, the petition hurtled Turkish academics into the dissenting spotlight, prompting Erdoğan to arrest and dismiss academics through emergency decrees. The purges only escalated after the unsuccessful coup in July 2016. Since last November, many signatories have been held on criminal charges and accused of terror propaganda. Ostensible “terrorists” in Turkey, professors and other intellectuals like Lévy-Aksu have been persecuted, which has led to job loss, passport revocation and prison.
In Lévy-Aksu’s case, she has been one of the luckier academics. With her dual French and Turkish citizenship, Lévy-Aksu is able to easily enter and leave the country where she attends hearings of her fellow colleagues and offers her continued solidarity. She is currently finishing up her fellowship in London and recently began studying law at BPP University Law School.
Lévy-Aksu spoke with Sarah Wu of Index on Censorship about the current situation for Turkish academics. Below is an edited version of their conversation:
Index: What role did your participation in Academics for Peace play in your dismissal?
Lévy-Aksu: That was that exact reason why I was fired. It was openly stated. I had been involved in Academics for Peace while I was in Turkey, and when I came to London, I became involved in its UK branch. The Council of Higher Education gave no reason when they revoked my work permit at my university, which was the same case for another foreign academic in the sociology department. When I decided to sue the Council of Higher Education, my lawyer first asked what the reason for dismissal was, and they then said the petition was the main reason. This is the core issue in the ongoing administrative lawsuit I opened against the Higher Education Council and Boğaziçi.
Index: Were your reasons for signing the petition personal or professional?
Lévy-Aksu: I think it was a reaction motivated by anger and the need to say something against what was going on, not only as an academic but as a citizen. Although I was not a Turkish citizen at the time, as a human being I have this duty to speak up and not to stay silent. It was a way to morally and politically react to what was going on and doing it collectively made sense at the time.
Since the beginning of the Turkish Republic, the Kurdish region and Kurdish populations have been consistently targeted by state oppression. Seeing this happening again and again, [signing this petition] was just a way to say, ‘Not again’. The petition was a way, especially for Turkish academics not in the Kurdish region, to say that they were concerned, aware of what was going on, and eager to voice their disagreement.
Index: Do you have any anxiety while traveling to and from Turkey?
Lévy-Aksu: Being a foreigner at the time worked in my favor. My main concern, besides being dismissed, was being expelled from the country, which is quite common for foreign troublemakers. So I applied and surprisingly got the citizenship after being dismissed from the university. It’s funny because I lost my job and then became Turkish. I am therefore lucky enough to travel and I go to Turkey as often as I can as it is still the place I feel I belong to.
Every time I go to Turkey, I hear a lot of criticisms in private by people who are not just political, but by people who want this oppression to stop. Even if they are not leftist or Kurdish, more or less everyone has been affected by the purges or repression. But it’s different when it comes to public discontent. People are now arrested for a tweet or a social media post. A line can send you to prison. So you have to be really brave. The space for opposition has dramatically shrunk.
I still think it’s remarkable that people are still ready to protest despite risking arrest, and if you think about western societies, I’m not sure there would be more resistance in the same context. Who is ready to sacrifice his career, to lose his job, but also his liberty? I think this is a problem that not only concerns Turkey. You need to be really brave to continue speaking up.
There are so many examples of academics and non academics who are, despite all risks, resisting in Turkey. Showing solidarity is the least we can do.
Index: How did the rest of your colleagues fare?
Lévy-Aksu: It depends. My university has been spared of the purges besides me and my other colleague, Prof. Abbas Vali. But in comparison to other universities, I have been much luckier than many others. A great number of friends are stuck in Turkey because their passports have been revoked and are having difficulties finding a job outside of academia. Colleagues in London and other parts of Europe are also in difficult situations. For them, sometimes their passports are revoked after they come here, so now they are stuck and visa renewals are difficult. If they go back, they know they won’t be able to leave Turkey again. It’s a very complex situation, not to mention the financial and job search difficulties. In addition, several signatories of the petition have already been sentenced to 15 months imprisonment (with possibility of a suspensive appeal) for terror propaganda and hundreds of other cases are going on.
Index: Erdoğan was arrested for reading a poem and now he’s doing the same thing with academics. Do you think he is thin-skinned and fearful for his reputation, or is there a deeper meaning behind the academic purges?
Lévy-Aksu: He is relying on the lack of sound democratic tradition, which is what all the previous leaders of the Turkey have done in the past. But of course, the level of control on the institution he has is probably unparalleled in Turkish history.
He has established a system that attempts to control all of society, which attempts to reduce all opposition. It is done now complicitly by many decision makers. These people in institutions are, either by ideological conviction or by fear, doing what is expected of them so that the power can maintain itself. The system, which is bigger than Erdoğan himself, is frightening. It extends to the justice institution, the education system and police. Even more worrying are the mechanisms of denunciation, the use of society and encouragement to denounce your neighbors, your colleagues.
We see it in the universities. Colleagues are denounced by students. Students are denounced by students. You have all these mechanisms that contribute to the polarisation of society and increase fear and potential violence. On both sides, you feel this palpable tension. Even if Erdoğan left, it would not be easy to solve.
Index: Where do you think Erdoğan is taking the university system?
Lévy-Aksu: There’s a push to make religious values the core of education, and it’s something we’ve already felt even before the coup. This increasingly conservative, religious and nationalistic discourse means certain topics can’t be discussed, which means academics can be denounced for expressing critical opinions.
This is the case at my former university. There have been many arrests of students and police are on campus. There was an incident between pro-government and leftist students after the Afrin operation and Erdoğan called for the arrest of those students and a ‘cleaning of the university,’ calling them terrorists, communists and treacherous students and saying they should not be given the right to education. Police are on campus, they are arresting students from the dormitories, and they check IDs in the library – this is what’s happening.
They’re establishing fear not only for politically engaged students but all the academic community, who expect university to be a place of knowledge, not a place of control and repression. Unfortunately, every kind of institution and place of social life is transforming into a place of surveillance and control, and this is the case for universities all over Turkey. Most of them have been extensively purged and most are controlled by the police and administration and by the collaboration of state representatives.
I think it’s a very dark picture. It’s getting darker and darker especially with the beginning of the Turkish military operation in Syria, which again gave a new reason for emphasising nationalist, religious values and arresting people who protested against this military intervention.
Index: Do you think the best form of support for the academics in Turkey is to show solidarity, is it enough?
Lévy-Aksu: This is an ongoing debate among the academics who are still in Turkey and those who are abroad. Of course solidarity is important. It can be financial solidarity with the academics dismissed, it can be helping an academic pursue their research and networking, or giving them access to online classes if they cannot move. Academics for Peace networks in Europe and the US are lobbying to encourage organisations such as Scholars at Risk or CARA, state or regional institutions and foundations to create positions for dismissed academics. In the UK, we have just established the Centre for Democracy and Peace Research to develop projects and partnership to support dismissed academics and, beyond this, critical research and production of knowledge.
Another possible form is one that started last year by the Academics for Peace. The call to freeze all cooperation with complicit universities. It’s a call that has been made by the Academics for Peace networks in the UK, France, Germany and the US. It established a list of complicit universities and calls for academics not to cooperate formally with them. It means not participating in conferences organised by complicit universities and not inviting directors of the universities. As an institutional boycott, it targets the institutions that are persecuting the ideas and opinions of academics.
Until now, it’s had some limited impact. One of the reasons is that it’s not easy for academics to understand the situation in Turkey. Colleagues in Turkey too are divided on this. For some, they think it’s important to keep strong relations with foreign institutions, including bringing colleagues to the university even if it witnessed some arbitrary dismissal. For the ones that have been dismissed, they are expecting this kind of reaction.
I understand there can be reluctance against boycotting, but I think the bare minimum is for people who go to Turkey is to be aware of what is going on. Foreign academics should be able to raise criticisms or questions if they choose to visit these institutions. Otherwise, you become complicit in a way through your silence and not seeing what’s going on. Academics who visit these complicit universities are strongly resented by colleagues who are in Turkey and feel invisible and unable to travel. I think awareness of what’s going on in different countries and global solidarity is important.
I understand that colleagues who have worked with Turkish colleagues for a long time enjoy going to Turkey because it relates to their fieldwork and they have developed fruitful academic collaborations there. Yet knowing these institutions that have persecuted other academics for their opinions should raise moral questions before you visit. [/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:1523868900741-6ff5bed6-c05b-7″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Apr 18 | Index in the Press
Eight vigils will be held across the world today to mark six months since the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in a car bomb outside her home. Read the full article.
15 Apr 18 | Index in the Press
The Committee to Protect Journalists, Il-Kenniesa, Reporters Without Borders, Transparency International, and European Federation of Journalists, are holding a vigil at the Schuman Roundabout – located between key EU institutions – to mark the 6th month anniversary of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. Read the full article.
