Sixty-five signatories from human rights organisations, as well as musicians, lawyers and academics, call on the Metropolitan police to stop using repressive injunctions against musicians as a means to reduce gang violence. Read the full letter.
Universities are allowing free speech to be curtailed on campuses in favour of “rule of the mob”, the former equalities chief has warned, as he says vice-Chancellors must stop behaving like “frightened children” and take a stand. Read the full article.
Technology has linked much of the world together, but in its complexity and ubiquity, technology also has deeply personal qualities. It has helped us build relationships and has become a part of our daily lives, something we carry in our pockets wherever we go. This duality of tech and particularly the Internet—its ability to be vast yet intimate—has enabled people to express themselves in unique ways, but also brought with it some serious challenges. Where open channels into each other’s lives exist, the spread of harassment, abuse and vitriol can be equally pervasive and personal.
In this next installment of the Vera List Center’s “Freedom of Speech: A Curriculum for Studies into Darkness” series, seminar participants will turn from considerations of freedom of speech in a U.S. context (a particular focus of Seminar 1) to how freedom of expression is exercised—and curtailed—in our complex online sphere. By observing the ability of women to safely and securely speak out online, we will bring to the fore the contradictions of the Internet, a seemingly borderless space that is used by people living within borders, a tool that has equalizing potential but is constructed through the hegemony that is Silicon Valley.
The focus will be on women, since increasingly research and testimony are showing what many women have long known, that the Internet is not an equal space. The online landscape bears more risks for women than for men, and gets riskier depending on other aspects of her identity, such as race or religion, or whether she works as a journalist or in another public facing job. As a result of the scale of this type of abuse, some women have resorted to self-censorship or have disengaged from online platforms altogether. More often than not, self-censorship is a direct consequence of such attacks. However, at times, can it also be a proactive form of resilience? Women, civil society and activists have responded to the challenges in ingenious and alternative ways of community building and solidarity—shared by many minorities.
In an era where technology is quickly becoming everything, the consequences for women being unable to access the Internet safely and securely, without facing misogynist abuse, cannot be overstated. Technology, and the Internet specifically, is not neutral, and how tech is built and managed has a direct impact on women’s right to freedom of expression as well as equality in society as a whole.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Participants” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”104939″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”104941″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”104940″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”104942″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_custom_heading text=”Moderator” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”104943″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
When: Monday 11 FEB 2019 6:30PM-8:30PM EST
Where: The New School, Theresa Lang Community Center, 55 West 13th Street, 2nd floor, New York
Tickets: Free via Eventbrite. Registration required. On registration, participants will receive preparatory reading material.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]The seminar series Freedom of Speech. A Curriculum for Studies into Darkness is organized by the Vera List Center for Art and Politics as part of the center’s 2018–2020 curatorial focus If Art Is Politics. It is directed by Carin Kuoni, Director/Chief Curator, Vera List Center, and Laura Raicovich with assistance by Gabriela López Dena. Partner organisations for the seminars are ARTICLE 19; the National Coalition Against Censorship; New York Peace Institute; and Weeksville Heritage Center. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, points to the long history of the authorities targeting music by people “far removed from those in power … The law already prevents individuals from directly inciting violence, but such wide-ranging bans go well beyond this. They are not the way to handle ideas or opinions that are distasteful or disturbing, and do nothing to address the issues that lead to the creation of this kind of music.” Read the full article.
Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Credit: UN Women / Flickr
H.E. Michelle Bachelet
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
United Nations
52 Rue des Paquis
1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Your Excellency,
We, the undersigned organisations, write to you to express our concern regarding the worsening situation for civil society in Bahrain. We believe co-ordinated international action coupled with public scrutiny are imperative to address the government of Bahrain’s ongoing attacks on civil society and to hold the kingdom accountable to its commitments to international human rights laws and standards. To this end, we call upon your Office to continue to monitor the situation in Bahrain and to continue to raise concerns at the highest level, both publicly and privately, with the government, as was done by your predecessor, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. We believe heightened scrutiny of Bahrain’s human rights record and its ongoing human rights violations is particularly important now that the kingdom is a Member State of the Human Rights Council.
In the past two years, the Bahraini government increased its repression of the kingdom’s remaining civil society organisations, political opposition groups, and human rights defenders. In June 2016, Bahrain’s Administrative Court forcibly dissolved al-Wefaq, Bahrain’s largest political opposition society, a ruling that was upheld in February 2018. In May 2017, a court approved the forcible dissolution of the National Democratic Action Society, also known as Wa’ad. Only a month later, the government indefinitely suspended the kingdom’s last remaining independent newspaper, Al-Wasat, continuing its repression of free expression and press freedom.
While there were hopes that the government might ease repression in the run-up to elections for the lower house of parliament on 24 November 2018, these were dashed with a series of actions and policies that effectively precluded the elections from being free or fair, and that continued the broader assault on civil society. Only weeks ahead of ahead of the elections, the country’s highest appeals court sentenced Sheikh Ali Salman, the Secretary-General of Al-Wefaq, to life in prison on spurious charges of espionage dating from 2011. The government also enacted new legislation banning all individuals who had ever belonged to a dissolved political society from seeking or holding elected office, as well as anyone who has ever served six months or more in prison. This affects a large portion of Bahrain’s population, as the kingdom currently has around 4,000 political prisoners.
Beyond rigging the election process at the expense of political opposition societies and free and fair participation, over this past year Bahrain has continued to target, harass, and imprison activists and human rights defenders for exercising their right to free expression. The government criminalised calls to boycott the elections, and, on 13 November 2018, arrested former Member of Parliament Ali Rasheed al-Asheeri for tweeting about boycotting the November elections. On 31 December 2018, Bahrain’s Court of Cassation – its court of last resort – upheld prominent human rights defender Nabeel Rajab’s five-year prison sentence on spurious charges of tweeting and re-tweeting criticism of torture in Jau Prison and the war in Yemen, drawing criticism from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. With this decision, Rajab has exhausted all legal remedies to reverse the charges and will remain in prison until 2023. He has already served a two-year prison sentence on charges related to television interviews in which he discussed the human rights situation in the kingdom.
While Bahrain has several institutions tasked with oversight responsibilities and enforcing accountability for human rights abuses, we have grave concerns over their effectiveness, their independence, and their commitment to fulfilling their mandates. Similar concerns have been raised about other Bahraini institutions – the National Institution for Human Rights (NIHR) and the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman – by the UN Human Rights Committee. In the Committee’s first evaluation of Bahrain under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in July 2018, it found the NIHR largely lacked sufficient independence from the government. The European Parliament has also criticised the NIHR, including in a June 2018 resolution where the body expressed “regret” for the honours it has bestowed upon the NIHR. In the resolution, the European Parliament cited the institution’s lack of independence to fulfil its duties. The Ministry of Interior (MoI) Ombudsman has received sharp criticism, including from the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT). The CAT cited the Ombudsman’s lack of independence, impartiality, and efficacy in addressing complaints submitted to the institution.
Bahrain’s national institutions not only fail to implement human rights reforms, they help perpetuate and whitewash abuses. Both the Ombudsman and NIHR have released reports that sanitise violations like police brutality, while neglecting to address or condemn violent police raids on peaceful protests.
The failure of Bahrain’s human rights institutions to address serious abuses both reflects and promotes a broader culture of impunity in the country, where the government can continue to suppress free expression and civil society.
Despite these abuses and despite concerns from UN bodies, Bahrain has not been the subject of collective action in the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) since a joint statement in September 2015 at HRC 30. Since then, the government has taken increased steps to limit fundamental freedoms, including restricting the rights to free expression, free assembly, free association, and free press, dissolving political opposition societies and jailing human rights defenders, religious leaders, and political figures. However, even as Bahrain has embarked on this campaign to suppress opposition and dissent, state action on Bahrain in the HRC has been limited to individual condemnations by various governments under Agenda Items 2 and 4.
Despite this lack of joint action, the Office of the High Commissioner has been consistently vocal about Bahrain’s rights abuses, and we are very appreciative of the Office’s attention over the past several years. Your predecessor raised concerns about Bahrain in his opening statements at the HRC, including at the 36th Council session, where he highlighted restrictions on civil society and the kingdom’s lack of engagement with international human rights mechanisms, and at 38th Council session, in which he reiterated past concerns and sharply criticised Bahrain for its continued refusal to co-operate with the Office of the High Commissioner and the mandates of the Special Procedures.
We believe that this UN scrutiny is now even more necessary as Bahrain assumes a seat on the Council as a Member State.
We strongly urge you to continue to monitor the situation, to publicly express your concerns to Bahraini officials, and to call on the Bahraini government to meet its international obligations, including those concerning protecting and promoting civil society. Without an independent, viable civil society in the country there can be no serious domestic pressure on the government to relax restrictions and ease repression.
We call on you to highlight Bahrain’s restrictions on civil society, targeting of human rights defenders, dissolution of political opposition, and unrelenting attacks on free expression in your opening statement at the 40th Human Rights Council session, the first session of which Bahrain is a member of the Council.
Sincerely,
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
ARTICLE 19
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Studies & Peace Building (CEMESP)
Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Freedom Forum
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
Maharat Foundation
Mediacentar Sarajevo
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
Norwegian PEN
OpenMedia
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA)
PEN America
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
South East Europe Media Organisation
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy
Cairo Institute to Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
CIVICUS
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights
Odhikar (Bangladesh)
Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
Sudanese Development Initiative (Sudan)
JOINT Liga de ONGs em Mocambique
West African Human Rights Defenders Network
Latin American Network for Democracy (REDLAD)
Ligue Burundaise des Droits de l’homme ITEKA
Organisation Tchadienne Anti-Corruption (OTAC)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1549278314945-d1d5bcda-455e-2″ taxonomies=”716″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Zimbabwe’s president Emmerson Mnangagwa at the World Economic Forum in Davos, January 2018 (Credit: World Economic Forum)
Zimbabwe’s president Emmerson Mnangagwa tweeted on 20 January that “in light of the economic situation” he would be cutting short his “highly productive” European junket to return home. This wasn’t the whole story. What forced him to come back early was a crisis precipitated by the steep fuel price hike he announced on 12 January just before he flew off.
Many people first heard of the increase via social media, and the initial calls to protest came online from the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions secretary general Peter Mutasa and #ThisFlag activist Evan Mawarire, who was shortlisted for the 2017 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards, who was released on bail on Wednesday 30 January. Mawarire is facing charges of treason related to a three-day strike that began on 14 January to protest the price hike.
Things immediately turned violent, with looting and arson causing millions of dollars worth of damage and clashes with police and military, responding with the brutality they are renowned for, leaving hundreds injured and an estimated 12 people dead. Those arrested face “assault, torture, inhumane and degrading treatment“.
Following the protests, Zimbabwe’s government forced a “total internet shutdown” from 15-17 January, with a brief restoration on 16 January. No one anticipated that the government would block the entire internet. Internet service providers only told their customers of the shutdown after Energy Mutodi, the deputy minister of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services, spun it to Zimbabweans on national television that the internet was “slow” because it was “congested”.
On 21 January judge Owen Tagu in Zimbabwe’s high court, following an urgent appeal by the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Media Institute of Southern Africa challenging the disruptions, ruled that the government exceeded its mandate in ordering the internet blackout during the protests.
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Media Institute of Southern Africa argued that the state security minister who issued the directive for the shutdowns had no authority to do so. Tagu concurred.
Until the restoration of the internet, Zimbabweans still couldn’t access Whatsapp, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter without a virtual private network.
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Media Institute of Southern Africa do not rule out another court hearing as Zimbabwe’s Interception of Communications Act “provides for the lawful interception and monitoring of certain communications in the course of their transmission through a telecommunication, postal or any other related service or system in Zimbabwe; to provide for the establishment of a monitoring centre; and to provide for any other matters connected with or incidental to the foregoing”.
Only the president has the power to issue a directive for the interception of anybody’s communications. However, as Denford Halimani, one of the lawyers for the applicants, told Index on Censorship, not even the president can shut down the internet: “The act does not give him that power. If parliament had intended to give him that power it would have said in addition to intercepting you can also shut down the internet for everyone.”
The internet has been integral to recent events in Zimbabwe, which may explain the government’s current nervousness. The military and those behind the November 2017 coup used social media to call on citizens to march in support of Mnangagwa. Thousands heeded the call and possibly helped persuade Mugabe, who had until then stubbornly refused to step down, to go.
Social media, specifically Whatsapp, was the medium of choice for disseminating information on the January 2018 strike and on what was going on in various parts of the country.
Mnangagwa may have missed the irony that when he made his announcement to return home on Twitter, but Zimbabwean Twitter users did not. Simbabrashe Chirara responded in Shona, the most widely spoken language in Zimbabwe: “The internet is blocked so who are you talking to, comrade?” With the widespread use of VPN’s, as recommended by the tech-savvy, many Zimbabweans are seemingly unfazed by the social media blackout.
Others wondered why he was talking about the “economic situation” without addressing the issue of those killed by the security forces. When gruesome footage of an attack on a protester by security officials featured in a Sky News report, Mnangagwa could no longer remain silent on the matter. In a statement on 28 January, the president expressed how “appalled” he was, adding that he has ordered the arrest of those behind it.
With the ongoing violence, questions are now being asked as to whether Mnangagwa’s has control over the country, with many believing that Zimbabwe is effectively a military state.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1549984748531-9fde297e-f33f-1″ taxonomies=”173″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
The European Commission-funded Mapping Media Freedom organisation has identified worrying trends threatening press freedom in European Union member countries, accession applicants and neighbouring countries since 2014. Read the full article.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill is a major shake-up of how authorities access the data of people in the UK and overseas, in the context of investigating and prosecuting serious crime.
We welcome better measures to tackle serious crime, but bad legislation will unnecessarily erode privacy, freedom of expression, and press freedom. It is possible to have more effective investigation and prosecution while also protecting these fundamental rights, but this bill fails to do so. Many of the powers in the bill are unprecedented and broad; for example, a general power for the police to apply for electronic content does not currently exist in UK law.
Section 20 (2) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 sets a minimal threshold for authorities to access content: a warrant can only be deemed necessary if it is in the interests of national security, the prevention or detection of serious crime (defined in s.263, though reasonable grounds are not required), or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as it relates to national security. However, the threshold set in the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill is that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed (cl. 4(3)), unless the order is sought for the purposes of a terrorist investigation, in which case no evidentiary threshold is required at all.
Whilst we welcome the requirement of reasonable grounds, an ‘indictable offence’ threshold is lower than even the minimal threshold set out in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which is already subject to judicial review. Therefore, this bill risks instating a two-tier system, further jeopardising privacy rights and freedom of expression rights protected by Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act respectively.
The Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill has two aims:
it sets new rules when UK authorities are accessing communications data from overseas servers;
it also envisages a brand-new framework of treaties to allow overseas courts to access UK-based data.
On the first aim, the bill establishes a quick route for UK authorities to access information stored on servers overseas – and that includes what’s held by big platforms and telecoms companies based in the US. But that route also takes a shortcut through important protections for citizens’ privacy, which results in a draconian new regime.
In the UK, there are rules around production orders that protect privacy and freedom of expression – they’re contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Namely, the material sought has to be of substantial value to an investigation and likely to be relevant evidence; other methods of obtaining the material have to have been tried unless they were bound to fail; and it has to be in the public interest. This bill ignores these protections. That leaves UK citizens vulnerable – including journalists who need these protections to do work in the public interest. We ask that MPs and Peers include these protections in the bill.
On the second point, the bill will enable the Government to enter treaties to allow foreign governments to make inbound applications for information held in the UK. But it is silent on what, if any, checks and safeguards there will be. This may well result in overseas authorities – including police forces and authorities from undemocratic countries – having greater powers over UK-held data.
We urge MPs and Peers to insist that these future treaties mirror the existing safeguards in UK production orders as a minimum, and that they provide at least equivalent levels of protection for freedom of expression and privacy. There should be a commitment in this bill that robust safeguards will apply.
Signed:
Reporters Without Borders
Index on Censorship
English PEN
Big Brother Watch
Open Rights Group
National Union of Students
Committee on the Administration of Justice
Cage
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”104907″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]In just a few days, Dutch historian Tayfun Balcik, programme coordinator at The Hague Peace Project, a non-governmental organisation, will count articles by or about Muslims in four mainstream Dutch media for the last time. Since 1 November, he has counted and registered on a daily basis, building a database showing how often the word ‘terrorism’ is used in combination with ‘Muslim’, and how Muslim women are represented.
“One group is systematically framed negatively in Dutch media, and that’s problematic”, Balcik said.
The idea to analyse the reporting about Muslims quantitatively and qualitatively, emerged last year. Balcik, who has always been a very critical news consumer, explained: “I am a Muslim myself and have many Muslims in my social network. They all say that Dutch media are so negative about them, but this was left in a vacuum since there were no data. So I decided to register, neutrally and systematically. Now at least we know what we are talking about.”
By far the most written about subject in the four papers he surveyed – centrist De Volkskrant, liberal NRC Handelsblad, right-centrist Algemeen Dagblad and conservative-populist De Telegraaf – when it comes to Muslims, is terrorism. Or, to be more precise: when any of these papers write about terrorism, it is usually about terrorism committed by Muslims. In De Telegraaf no less than 99% of terrorism-related reporting is about Muslims, according to Balcik.
In De Telegraaf “terrorism is being equated with Muslims, also but to a bit lesser extent in Algemeen Dagblad. NRC and Volkskrant are also more prone to use the word ‘terrorism’ when it comes to Muslim violence, but they use it also for violence by the extreme right or by the (Kurdish) PKK.”
Balcik said that terrorism is never used when it comes to state violence, with one exception: Iran. He added: “You could also describe actions of the Turkish state, the United States or Israel as terrorist. This needs to be discussed.”
Balcik also looked at the representation of Muslim women. He found that they were mainly portrayed as being “unfree”. In November Balcik counted 55 De Volkskrant articles in which Muslim women played a role. In 28 of those, the reader is left with the image of a “suppressed Muslima”. The burqa ban (a form of which was introduced in the Netherlands in summer 2018), gender inequality in Islam, discomfort about the headscarf, and female genital mutilation were the subjects most often written about. “And Muslim women themselves are hardly ever quoted,” Balcik added.
Volkskrant editor-in-chief Philippe Remarque dismissed Balcik’s work as “of not much value”. He told Index on Censorship: “It is logical that the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘terror’ are often combined in our reporting because these events are in the news. It doesn’t say anything about our attitude towards Muslims. Had Balcik tallied the words ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘Catholic church’ in the last couple of years, he would sure have found a correlation as well. Would he conclude that we report negatively and one-sidedly about Catholics?”
Remarque also criticised Balcik’s assertion about the paper’s coverage of Muslim women: “We try to offer a diversity of perspectives. We have a series of interviews in which Dutch people from different backgrounds talk about their experiences with discrimination. We also have a Muslim columnist, Ibtihal Jadib, who recently wrote about how she wants to convey her religion to her children. Apparently, Balcik judges her columns as negative about Muslims. I find that narrow-minded.”
Confronted with Remarque’s criticism, Balcik said: “Interesting comment from a newsmaker. As if there is no editorial line in which news is prioritised and what is called ‘terrorism’ and what isn’t. ‘News’ isn’t objective but is always a selective representation of events.” He continued: “When I would analyse the reporting about Christians or Catholics, I would tally all reporting about that group, including about Christian political parties, Christmas, Easter, churches, etcetera. Would ‘sexual abuse’ then top the topics list?”
Balcik doubted whether Remarque understood what his tally encompassed, and said: “Also, he doesn’t seem to understand how politicised and troubled the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ have become in the Netherlands. But if he really wants a comparison, and if he has a budget, I can make the same tally and analysis about Christians and Jews in De Volkskrant. We can then sit together and compare the outcomes.”
Balcik’s aim with the project is to open a dialogue. When the tally is done, he is going to make his final analysis and write a report that discusses how the media portrays “terrorism” and “Muslim women”, in addition to the themes of “them and us rhetoric” and “criminality”. The report will then be debated at an event in an Amsterdam cultural centre, with, Balcik hopes, the participation of the editors-in-chief of the four papers. He also wants to raise the issue of the lack of diversity in the newsrooms of the four scrutinised papers.
For Elske Schouten, deputy editor-in-chief of NRC Handelsblad, this is an important point. In an email to Index on Censorship, she referred to a survey that the paper did last year, which found that Dutch print and television newsrooms had become slightly less white between 2015 and 2018: from 96.8% white in 2015, to 94.6% white by the end of 2018. This contrasts with the Netherlands as a whole, which has a non-western migration background population of 13%.
“We absolutely want to do better and we are working on that,” Schouten said. “I think it is hard for Balcik to count this. You don’t always know who is Muslim or not, or who is white or not. Take me: my name is super-Dutch but I am definitely not white.”
Asked about the value of Balcik’s research, she said: “We find diversity very important and all sorts of tallies are welcomed. However, we don’t necessarily focus on religious diversity but try to pay attention to different migration backgrounds, gender, sexual orientation or people in urban agglomerations and the periphery.”
Balcik remarked that Muslims hardly play a role on the cultural pages of the four papers, but Schouten said: “I am sure that on our cultural, economics and sports pages, people of a variety of religious paths play a role. We only make their religion explicit when it is relevant, which is usually not the case.” She paged through the last Cultural Supplement of NRC and determined that in two of the six big articles a “maybe Muslim” is the protagonist.
Balcik agrees that the religion or cultural background of the protagonist or other actors in a story isn’t always relevant, but pointed out: “When people with a migration background or Muslims contribute positively, they are ‘mayor (of Rotterdam) Ahmed Aboutaleb’, or ‘documentary maker Sinan Can’, but when the news is negative, it’s about a ‘Muslim terrorist’ or ‘Moroccan mafia’. We need to have a dialogue about this.”
Balcik would be the last to put the four papers on an equal footing when he analysed the results of his research. He said: “De Telegraaf and Algemeen Dagblad are rather extreme, while Volkskrant and especially NRC report much more meticulously.” De Telegraaf did not respond to questions from Index on Censorship.
The editor-in-chief of Algemeen Dagblad was on a holiday. His deputy, Frank Poorthuis, did not want to talk in his boss’s name, but e-mailed: “In all honesty, and between us, I, as an elderly white man, get a little bit tired of these questions because they are biased.”[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1548844915301-f4fe48ce-a0d7-7″ taxonomies=”11227, 8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
The Index on Censorship annually honors outspoken artists and activists who have made a significant contribution to fighting censorship through arts, campaigning, digital activism, and journalism. Read the full article.
Marking the 50th anniversary of the end of UK theatre censorship ushered in by the Theatres Act of 1968, Index on Censorship hosted an educational and interactive workshop with young people at the British Library. The event was funded by the Noel Coward Foundation. The aim of the workshop was for young people to explore the history of censorship in British theatre, including the Noel Coward works censored by the Lord Chamberlain’s office, while also promoting open discussion around contemporary issues.
Jemimah Steinfeld, deputy editor of Index on Censorship magazine, facilitated the workshop.
Rachael Jolley, editor of Index on Censorship magazine, Sally Gimson, deputy editor, and Tracey Bagshaw, journalist and magazine contributor — with special help from editorial assistant Lewis Jennings — were live on air at Resonance FM on 21 January to discuss the latest issue which takes a special look at why different societies stop people discussing the most significant events in life.
In China, as Karoline Kan reports, women were forced for many years to have just one child and now they are being pushed to have two, but it is not something to talk about. In South Korea Steven Borowiec finds men have taken to social media to condemn a new film adaptation of a novel about motherhood. Irene Caselli describes the consequences in Latin America of preventing discussion about contraception and sexually transmitted infections.Joan McFadden digs into attitudes to gay marriage in the Hebrides, where she grew up, and interviews the Presbyterian minister who demonstrated against Lewis Pride. We have an original play from Syrian dramatist Liwaa Yazji about fear and violent death. While flash fiction writer Neema Komba imagines a Tanzanian bride challenging the marriage committee over her wedding cake. Finally, Nobel-prize-winning author Svetlana Alexievich tells us that she is sanguine about the mortal dangers of chronicling and criticising post-Soviet Russia.
The Winter 2018 podcast can also be found on iTunes.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1548431570319-1f2dca2e-e6db-5″ taxonomies=”30752″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
We are currently working hard to ensure that our new website is in perfect working order so we can continue to bring you the latest news, views and content from around the world. You may find that some pages are currently offline or that you are unable to find something that you are looking for. This is only temporary - and we apologise for any convenience this may cause.
Please consider subscribing to our weekly newsletter below, so that you are among the first to hear from our contributors and don't miss anything in future.
Thanks for your understanding.
?
STAY INFORMED.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
Be the first to hear from uncensored writers and artists
For over 50 years, Index has published work by censored writers and artists. Subscribe to our email newsletter to get regular updates from our incredible contributors.
?
SUPPORT OUR WORK
Index on Censorship’s work is only possible because of donations from people like you.
Please consider chipping in to help us give a voice to the voiceless:
Technology has linked much of the world together, but in its complexity and ubiquity, technology also has deeply personal qualities. It has helped us build relationships and has become a part of our daily lives, something we carry in our pockets wherever we go. This duality of tech and particularly the Internet—its ability to be vast yet intimate—has enabled people to express themselves in unique ways, but also brought with it some serious challenges. Where open channels into each other’s lives exist, the spread of harassment, abuse and vitriol can be equally pervasive and personal.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1548675564162-112293b5-39ff-4″ taxonomies=”15469″][/vc_column][/vc_row]