13 Nov 14 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Politics and Society, Russia, United Kingdom
(Photo: Padraig Reidy)
There’s a poster near my house in London. It shows a poorly illustrated George W. Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln early in the Iraq war, with the now infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner behind him. To his side, the tally of dead in the Iraq War (at least according to Iraq Body Count). Underneath is emblazoned the slogan: “This is what happens when there is no second opinion.” It is an advert for Russian propaganda channel RT (formerly Russia Today).
It’s a slightly muddled poster, but the signal is clear: did you feel lied to about the Iraq war? Watch RT.
Curiously, RT, which launched a UK channel on 30 October, seems to believe the poster doesn’t exist. A “report” on the RT website, dated 9 October, claims that the campaign of which this poster is part was “rejected for outdoor displays in London because of their ‘political overtones’”. The story goes on to claim that the “rejected” posters were replaced by ones that simply say “redacted”, before urging readers to download an RT app to view the ads on their phones.
But I have seen the poster. I even took a picture. Yet RT insists it has been banned, saying that outdoor advertising companies cited the Communications Act 2003, which “prohibits political advertising”. This prohibition is indeed to be found in the act, but only applies to broadcast advertisements, not billboard advertisements for broadcasters.
This is a fairly crude illustration of RT’s attitude to the truth. It is simply not an issue. What’s important is something that might sound true, something just about plausible, to suit the agenda (in this case, the agenda is threefold: one, to get people to download the app; two, to sow the belief that “they” are scared of RT; and three, to introduce the notion that political advertising is subject to a blanket ban in the UK).
Fair enough, you might say. But have you seen Fox News? Don’t all sorts of news organisations bend the truth to fit their agenda? There’s a case to be made, but there’s also a crucial difference. RT is funded and controlled by the Kremlin and is on a mission; a mission outlined in a new report by The Interpreter, part of the Institute of Modern Russia (disclosure: Index on Censorship has on occassion crossposted content from The Interpreter).
“The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money” elucidates what we had already long suspected: the Soviet Union may be dead, but Soviet tactics remain. And while the west may not want to believe it is in conflict with Russia, the Russians are already acting like it is (witness reports of heightened Russian air force activity in and near Nato airspace).
The report’s authors, Michael Weiss and Peter Pomerantsev, describe disinformation techniques dating back to the Soviet era: straight propaganda, certainly, but also Dezinformatsiya — the planting of false stories to undermine confidence in western governments. These include alleged coup plots, the bizarre theory that AIDS was created by the CIA, even the suggestion that the assassination of Kennedy was an inside job.
The suggestion is that democracy is a sham, and that democratic governments are at best hypocrites and at worst constantly, deliberately acting against the interests of their own populations.
The best false stories always have a ring of truth and a ring of empathy. Many politicians are hypocrites, some politicians act against the interests of those they should represent. If this much is true, is it that much of a leap to imagine that the entire system is a crock? That democracy and human rights are empty terms? We’re just asking legitimate questions, as every conspiracy theorist ever has said at some point.
Conspiracy theorists find a home at RT. Presenter Abby Martin, for example, who briefly won praise for apparently criticising Russia’s actions in Ukraine, says she still has “many questions” (just asking questions!) about the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and has used her show to expound on “false flag” attacks, alleged Israeli eugenics, and every US conspiracy theorists’ favourite, the massacre in Waco, Texas of David Koresh’s Branch Davidian cult in 1993.
All this would mean nothing if RT didn’t have a willing audience in the UK, the US and beyond. But a combination of a large budget, photogenic presenters and a certain way with a YouTube clip makes RT a serious player. It never quite veers into the straight out lunacy of Iran’s Press TV, which is quite open about its conspiracist contributors, and it looks like a serious operation. Furthermore, its positioning as an “alternative news source”, albeit one controlled by an increasingly authoritarian, paranoid and erratic Russian state, finds it fans among people who would rail against their own liberal states and societies (on the two occasions I visited the Occupy St Paul’s encampment in London, Russia Today was playing on a large screen there). All the while, the autocratic Putin is strengthened as democracy in undermined worldwide (witness how easily Putin was able to put the kibosh on effective intervention against Syria’s Assad through the relentless repetition of the line that helping the opposition would mean helping jihadist terrorists).
So what, as Lenin himself once asked, is to be done? After reports of UK broadcast regulator Ofcom’s recent investigations into RT for bias earlier this week, some people saw a chance to get RT taken off the air just weeks after it had begun. But this impulse is too close to political censorship in principle, and in practice, an ineffective sanction against a force that has huge power online, with millions upon millions of YouTube hits.
Decent democrats that they are, Weiss and Pomerantsev suggest eternal vigilance is required: we must be able to combat RT’s half truths and insinuations effectively, with hard facts and hard arguments, in order to stop them spreading. As ever, when arguments for counterspeech as the best defence against poison is suggested, one remembers Yeats’s lines: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.”
But this time 25 years ago, as East and West Germans embraced on top of the Berlin Wall, the world showed that the right argument can win even against the very worst. The Kremlin is playing the same games now as it did in its darkest days. Democrats should be ready to fight back.
This article was posted on 13 November 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
12 Nov 14 | Religion and Culture, United Kingdom
Art and Conflict is the result of a year-long research enquiry, supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, exploring the extraordinary work of contemporary artists, activists and cultural organisations in the context of armed conflict, revolution and post-conflict.
Bringing together a diverse range of perspectives, Art and Conflict aims to raise provocations and open up conversations within the arts, as well as across sectors and disciplines.
An introduction by Michaela Crimmin (Royal College of Art and co-director Culture+Conflict) precedes specially commissioned essays and texts by artist Jananne Al-Ani; Dr Bernadette Buckley (Goldsmiths, University of London); writer Malu Halasa; curator Jemima Montagu (co-director, Culture+Conflict); curator Sarah Rifky (Beirut, Cairo); artist Larissa Sansour; and, Professor Charles Tripp (SOAS). Two further essays by Michaela Crimmin and Dr Bernadette Buckley reflect on art and conflict in Higher Education in the UK.
A free download of the online publication is available here:
Art and Conflict
Art and Conflict
Edited by Michaela Crimmin and Elizabeth Stanton
Design by Tom Merrell
Published by Royal College of Art, London, 2014, with the support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
The Art and Conflict research inquiry was realised as a partnership with Index on Censorship, with additional support from the British Council, Culture+Conflict, the University of Manchester, and Goldsmiths, University of London.
12 Nov 14 | Events
In the 1980s, Stewart Brand declared that “information wants to be free”. The phrase became a slogan for technology activists, who argued that tech can liberate information from expensive patents and help further the ever expanding limits of human knowledge. As a part of the BBC Radio 3 Free Thinking Festival, Rana Mitter tests the promises of the internet to spread ideas quickly and democratically. Catch up online with this event featuring:
- Dr Rufus Pollock (Founding President of the Open Knowledge, an international non-profit organisation that promotes making data and information accessible)
- Jodie Ginsberg (Chief Executive of Index on Censorship)
WHERE: BBC Radio 3
WHEN: Thursday 20 November 2014, 10:00pm (then on iPlayer)
TICKETS: Listen live here
12 Nov 14 | Azerbaijan, Events
For six months, Azerbaijan has been chairing the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Europe’s top human rights body. During that period, Azerbaijan unleashed an unprecedented crackdown against civil society—including the imprisonment of human rights defenders and political activists who criticised the government.
Today, as the situation for human rights keeps deteriorating in the country, Azerbaijan is getting ready to host the first European Olympics.
Index on Censorship, Platform London and others will be holding a peaceful demonstration in front of the Embassy of Azerbaijan, 4 Kensington Ct, London W8 5DL on Monday 17 November 2014 at 5.00 pm.
Join us this Monday to denounce the crackdown on civil society and call for the release of all political prisoners in Azerbaijan.
Platform will be holding other demonstrations at 5pm everyday that week.
- Tuesday: 18 November BP’s HQ – 1 St James’ Sq – 5pm
- Wednesday: 19 November – Uk Foreign and Commonwealth Office on King Charles Street – 5pm
- Thursday: 20 November – the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1 Exchange Square (by Liverpool st) – 5pm
- Friday: 21 November – the International Olympic Committee – 60 Charlotte Street
For more information, please email Melody Patry, Senior Advocacy Officer, on [email protected] or call on 0207 260 2660.
12 Nov 14 | Draw the Line, Young Writers / Artists Programme
The right to vote has long been a symbol that you are seen as a valuable and worthy citizen by your government. The removal of this right is a restriction on your free expression and your ability to contribute to change in your country. But is restricting our right to vote a violation of free speech?
In the recent United States midterm elections there was controversy over the Republican’s use of voting restrictions to prevent groups — who they assumed would vote Democrat — from access to the polling station. The voter ID “fraud” laws have been accused by liberals as a shady measure to attempt to reduce voting by racial and ethnic minorities. It would also affect young people who lacked the supposedly necessary identification.
Voting age is another example of an ongoing debate surrounding this issue. Sixteen-year-olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum earlier this year. Since then, people have questioned whether the voting age should be reduced to 16 for the upcoming UK general election, and whether sixteen year olds are capable of making a well informed decision. And if voting is an act of free speech, does this mean prisoners should have the opportunity to vote? If voting is truly a human right should we all have the right to vote?
This article was posted on 12 November at indexoncensorship.org
12 Nov 14 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, Azerbaijan Statements, Campaigns, Statements
Mr Ilham Aliyev
President of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Avenue 7
1005 Baku
Republic of Azerbaijan
Fax: +994124923543 and +994124920625
Email: [email protected]
Mr President,
As the Chairmanship of the Council of Europe by the Republic of Azerbaijan draws to a close, we, the undersigned members and partners of the Human Rights House Network (HRHN) and the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders, call upon the Azerbaijani authorities, through you, Mr President, to put an end to the unprecedented repression against civil society. We call upon you to immediately and unconditionally release all civil society actors currently detained due to their engagement in human rights work and for raising critiques against Azerbaijan’s authorities, including and especially human rights defenders Leyla Yunus and her husband Arif Yunus, Rasul Jafarov, and Intigam Aliyev. Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli must also be released, as their detention is solely due to their monitoring of elections in the country, including the latest Presidential election of 9 October 2013.
This summer, one after the other, the main leaders of civil society were arrested. Many others decided to flee the country, rather than facing court hearings, of which the outcome is well known in advance. Few others have been forced into hiding in the country.
Leader of the Legal Education Society, human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev was sentenced on 8 August 2014 to pre-trial detention for 3 months on the same charges as those held against human rights defenders Rasul Jafarov, who was arrested on 2 August 2014 for tax evasion, illegal business and abuse of authority. On similar charges, Leyla Yunus, and her husband, Arif Yunus, were arrested on 30 July and 5 August 2014 respectively. Charges of State treason are additionally held against Leyla Yunus. Furthermore, the lawyers of Leyla Yunus and Intigam Aliyev were called as witnesses against their clients and hence bared from being their defendants. Very few lawyers agree to take up politically charged cases in Azerbaijan, a country in which the Bar Association is controlled by the Ministry of Justice and has disbarred lawyers such as Intigam Aliyev himself.[1] On 6 November 2014, the lawyer of Leyla Yunus, Alaif Hasanov, was sentenced to 240 hours of community service due to his public statements about the detention conditions of his client. Leyla Yunus has indeed faced psychological and physical abuses in detention, from detainees and from prison officials.
Earlier this year, the regional civil society leader Hasan Huseynli was sentenced to 6-years imprisonment[2] and the leaders of the only independent election monitoring organisation in the country, Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli, were sentenced to respectively 5 years and 6 months and 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.
Facing investigations and charges, many other human rights defenders fled the country or are in hiding from authorities, as they know they will not enjoy a fair hearing in court.
The authorities have also targeted other respected human rights voices in the country, such as the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS), a leading media rights NGO in the country. IRFS’ leader, Emin Huseynov, is well known and an internationally recognised human rights defender, facing similar charges as the other human rights defenders. On 5 November 2014, the 67-year old mother of human rights defender Gulnara Akhundova was summoned to the Office of the General Prosecutor. She was extensively interrogated about her daughter’s human rights activities. Following this interrogation, the Office conducted a search in the apartment registered as Gulnara Akhundova official address in Baku, which is her mother’s apartment. The few other independent voices left are also facing investigations and can be arrested at any given time.
On 10 November 2014, the blogger Mehman Huseynov, brother of Emin Huseynov and also an IRFS employee, was stopped and interrogated at the Baku Airport and later released. He was arrested in relation to an on going investigation against him, based on which he was issued a travel ban.[3] He is still not allowed to leave the country.
On 5 November 2014, the Nakhchivan City Court decided to end the investigation into Ilgar Nasibov. On 21 August 2014, Ilgar Nasibov was beaten in the office of the Democracy and NGO’s Development Resource Center in Nakhchivan. He suffered multiple fractures and injuries and to date remains in dire need of treatment. In an often-used strategy against critical voices, the police filed a lawsuit against him on charges of deliberately inflicting serious damage to health (article 127.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan). We believe Ilgar Nasibov should be compensated for the pain he suffered and immediately provided with adequate medical support.
Politically motivated detentions of activists of the youth opposition movement NIDA must also end, as well as those of inter alia journalists Rauf Mirkadirov and Hilal Mammadov[4] and political activist Tofiq Yaqublu. On 30 October, the opposition journalist Khalid Garayev was sentenced to 25 days in detention on charges of hooliganism and disobedience to the police.
All of those human rights defenders are respected internationally and received various recognitions. Those do not protect them from the repression, just as the worrying health condition of a few does not deserve any special treatment in the eyes of the authorities. We are also extremely worried to hear that the heath conditions of Leyla Yunus and Intigam Aliyev have greatly deteriorated. We believe that the conditions of their detention have had a detrimental effect on their health, as it appears that both have still not been provided adequate health care to address their respective illnesses. Intigam Aliyev has recently complained of increasing pain and Leyla Yunus is suffering a severe diabetics.
Repression of civil society: systemic problem remaining unaddressed
Unlike claims made internationally, Azerbaijan is not “on a journey towards human rights, to which it is committed.”[5] For a few years, Azerbaijan has repeatedly and by various international mechanisms been called upon to reform its legislation to prevent any crackdown on civil society.
In 2009 already, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed its concern over the “extensive limitations to the right to freedom of expression of the media, the closure of independent newspapers, and the removal of licences to broadcast locally for a number of foreign radio stations. It also remains concerned at reports of a pattern of harassment and criminal libel suits or hooliganism charges against journalists.”[6] The Committee was indeed shedding light on a wave of repression against media workers in the country, which included also the banning of foreign media, such as Voice of America and the Azerbaijani coverage of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Another wave of repression then touched upon the presence of international non-governmental organisations in Azerbaijan. In July 2009, the Azerbaijani authorities made amendments to the Azerbaijani NGO Law, which state that registration of foreign NGOs in Azerbaijan “is processed based on the agreement signed with the organisations”. It followed with the adoption of the new decree of 2011, with the aim to set criteria for concluding such agreements. Based on that legislative evolution, on 10 March 2011, authorities ordered the Human Rights House Azerbaijan (HRH Azerbaijan) to cease all activities in Azerbaijan until concluding an agreement with the authorities. In an opinion on the legislation, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) comes to the conclusion that the 2009 amendments to the Azerbaijani NGO law and the 2011 decree setting new requirements for foreign NGOs overturn the efforts to meet international standards and mentioned the registration of foreign NGOs among the most problematic aspects.[7]
Instead of committing to the Venice Commission’s findings, and to the execution of so many judgements of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression and association, Azerbaijan continued to adapt its legislation affecting human rights defenders and their NGOs. As the Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF) highlighted in its intervention at the United Nations Human Rights Council on 10 September 2014, several United Nations independent experts have repeatedly called for a revision of Azerbaijan’s legislation regulating the registration and funding of non-governmental organisations, declaring them as contrary to international human rights law and the standards in regard to the right to freedom of association.
The legislation became the pretext to arrest independent human rights defenders and to freeze the bank accounts of dozens of other NGOs.[8] When repeatedly questioned on Azerbaijan’s record at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on 24 June 2014, you have argued, Mr President, that the country has no political prisoners, basically aiming at saying that actions are taken within national legislation by an independent judiciary. The notion of “arbitrary detention” lato sensu can however also arise from the law itself or from the particular conduct of government officials. A detention, even if it is authorized by law, may still be considered arbitrary if it is premised upon an arbitrary piece of legislation or is inherently unjust, relying for instance on discriminatory grounds. United Nations and Council of Europe mechanisms and experts have repeatedly underlined that Azerbaijani legislation violates the country’s international obligations and standards, and hence the practices of authorities in applying such law is in violation to international human rights law, to which Azerbaijan says it is committed to.
It is in the backdrop of these repressive policies that you, Mr President, accepted to reestablish a working group on political prisoners under the auspices of the Council of Europe. The composition of the group discussing the issue is of great concern, given the fact that many of those independent human rights defenders who in the past worked on the issue of political prisoners are now behind bars, especially Leyla Yunus and Rasul Jafarov, who from prison on 8 August consolidated a list of 98 people detained on politically motivated charges.
Council of Europe chairmanship and reprisal against human rights defenders
The interrogation and search that took place following Gulnara Akhundova’s participation in a hearing of PACE’s Committee of Legal Affairs is a clear example of reprisal against human rights defenders perpretrated by Azerbaijani authorities. Another case of reprisal against those participating in events of international organisations is the harassment of investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova.[9] Most recently, she was recently arrested on charges of criminal defamation but later released. Leyla Yunus, Intigam Aliyev, Rasul Jafarov and Emin Huseynov are also well known names to the Council of Europe. They cooperate with its institutions, met the Secretary General at various occasions and provide information to the office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and to PACE rapporteurs. In June 2014, when you, Mr President, addressed PACE, Emin Huseynov, Rasul Jafarov and Intigam Aliyev together organised a side-event in Strasbourg, critical of the Azerbaijani human rights record. Previously already Azerbaijani authorities proved using reprisal against those raising human rights violations in Strasbourg: the order to HRH Azerbaijan to seize all activities followed the side-event organised at the January 2011 session of PACE by HRH Azerbaijan.
The rotating chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which Azerbaijan assumed for six months, is thought of as an occasion given to each of the Council’s 47 members to act as a role model in the implementation of European human rights law. It is a unique chance to prove a country’s commitment to the very spirit of the Council of Europe, its “devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of [Europe’s] peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy” as stated in the Statute of the Council of Europe of 5 May 1949, to which Azerbaijan adhered. Instead, during the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan embarked on an unprecedented repression of civil society.
Any country chairing the world’s strongest regional human rights protection mechanism has a duty to show good faith in the implementation of the its judicial mechanism; Azerbaijan has instead appealed one of the strongest judgements issued by the European Court of Human Rights on the pre-trial detention of Ilgar Mammadov, Chairman of the Republican Alternative Movement (REAL). In its judgement of 22 May 2014, the Court found that the criminal procedure against him is retaliation to critical public statements he made. In a rare move by the Court, it found a violation of Article 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which obliges States to act in good faith and prohibits them from restricting rights for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. The Court’s Grand Chamber rejected Azerbaijan’s appeal, but Ilgar Mammadov remains in detention. The pre-trial detention of Ilgar Mammadov had the same justification as the one against Leyla Yunus, Arif Yunus, Rasul Jafarov and Intigam Aliyev. Recently, their pre-trial detentions were extended. Azerbaijan should instead review its policies in regard to the excessive use of pre-trial, in accordance with the Ilgar Mammadov judgement.
On 24 June 2014, you, Mr President, told PACE that “[the authorities of Azerbaijan] respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.” The chairmanship of the Council of Europe by the Republic of Azerbaijan will instead remain stained with the lack of execution of the Court judgements and the mark of repression since July 2014 against Azerbaijan’s civil society.
The detention of Intigam Aliyev is a grave sign of non-cooperation with the Court. Intigam Aliyev is a prominent human rights lawyer engaged in the defense of human rights by providing legal defense, initiating strategic litigation, and training lawyers and providing human rights education. The work of Intigam Aliyev is essential in the promotion of human rights and democracy-building in Azerbaijan. He has strived for legal protection of victims of human rights violations for more than 15 years and has to date represented them in proceedings before the Court in more than 200 cases (around 40 cases are currently awaiting decision). He has succeeded in a number of cases concerning voting rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial and has served as a trainer in nearly 100 training courses for judges, lawyers, journalists, and representatives of non-governmental organisations. The Committee of Ministers recently requested “detailed information on all criminal charges pending against [Intigam Aliyev],” which is indeed a sign of its dismay over this detention.[10]
As Azerbaijan’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe draws to a close, we call upon the Azerbaijani authorities, through you, Mr President, to put an end to the unprecedented repression against civil society.
We specifically call upon you to immediately and unconditionally release all civil society actors currently detained due to their engagement in human rights activities and for raising critiques against Azerbaijan’s authorities, especially human rights defenders Leyla Yunus and her husband Arif Yunus, Rasul Jafarov and Intigam Aliyev. Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli must also be released.
We further call upon you to put an end to the harassment and attacks against human rights defenders, journalists and activists, and lift all potential charges against them, including Emin Huseynov, Mehman Huseynov and Khadija Ismayilova.
Yours sincerely,
Due to the risk of retaliation against Azerbaijani human rights defenders, we decided not to indicate the names of the Azerbaijani NGOs who worked on preparing the present letter.
Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Belarusian Association of Journalists
- Belarusian Helsinki Committee
- City Public Association “Centar Supolnaść”
- Human Rights Centre “Viasna”
Human Rights House Belgrade (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
- Lawyers Committee for Human Rights YUCOM
- Civic Initiatives
- Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
- Policy Centre
Human Rights House Kiev (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Human Rights Information Centre
- Center for Civil Liberties
- Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
- Social Action Centre
- Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation
Human Rights House London (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Article 19
- Index on Censorship
- Vivarta
Human Rights House Tbilisi (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Article 42 of the Constitution
- Caucasian Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Studies
- Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims
- Human Rights Centre
- Union Sapari – Family without Violence
Human Rights House Oslo (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Health and Human Rights Info
- Human Rights House Foundation
Human Rights House Voronezh (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Charitable Foundation
- Civic Initiatives Development Centre
- Confederation of Free Labor
- For Ecological and Social Justice
- Free University
- Golos
- Interregional Trade Union of Literary Men
- Lawyers for labor rights
- Memorial
- Ms. Olga Gnezdilova
- Soldiers Mothers of Russia
- Voronezh Journalist Club
- Voronezh-Chernozemie
- Youth Human Rights Movement
Human Rights House Zagreb (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- APEO/UPIM Association for Promotion of Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities
- B.a.B.e.
- CMS – Centre for Peace Studies
- Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past
- GOLJP – Civic Committee for Human Rights
- Svitanje – Association for Protection and Promotion of Mental Health
The Rafto House in Bergen, Norway (on behalf of the following NGOs):
The House of the Helsinki Foundation For Human Rights, Poland (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights
About the Human Rights House Network (www.humanrightshouse.org)
The Human Rights House Network (HRHN) unites 90 human rights NGOs joining forces in 18 independent Human Rights Houses in 13 countries in Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, East and Horn of Africa, and Western Europe. HRHN’s aim is to protect, empower and support human rights organisations locally and unite them in an international network of Human Rights Houses.
The Human Rights House Azerbaijan is one of the members of HRHN and served as an independent meeting place, a resource centre, and a coordinator for human rights organisations in Azerbaijan. In 2010, 6’000 human rights defenders, youth activists, independent journalists, and lawyers, used the facilities of the Human Rights House Azerbaijan, which has become a focal point for promotion and protection of human rights in Azerbaijan. The Human Rights House Azerbaijan ceased all its activities following an order of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 10 March 2011.
The Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), based in Oslo (Norway) with an office in Geneva (Switzerland), is HRHN’s secretariat. HRHF is international partner of the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders and the Balkan Network of Human Rights Defenders.
HRHF has consultative status with the United Nations and HRHN has participatory status with th
[1] In 2005, Intigam Aliyev was rejected in his application for membership to the Azerbaijan Bar Association despite being completely eligible to be accepted to the Bar under the national laws. Intigam Aliyev challenged this unlawful refusal by applying to the national courts, which, however, ruled against him.
[2] We welcome the release of Hasan Huseynli following the presidential pardon of 17 October 2014 for 80 prisoners in Azerbaijan, among which were also the members of the NIDA movement, Shahin Novruzlu, Elsever Mursalli and Bakhtiyar Guliyev.
[3] Mehman Huseynov was awarded in 2013 with the Press Prize Award from Fritt Ord Foundation and the Zeit Foundation. His travel ban was issued days before he was to travel to Oslo to receive his prize. More information available at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/19355.html.
[4] In its opinion delivered on 27 March 2014 on the detention of Hilal Mammadov, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that the charges are “based on Hilal Mammadov’s legitimate exercise of the right of freedom of expression (…) and that the violations of international law relating to the right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Hilal Mammadov an arbitrary character” (decision available in the Working Group’s report A/HRC/WGAD/2013/59). He was arrested on 21 June 2012 and sentenced to five years in prison with the accusation of “illegal selling of drugs”, “high treason”, and “incitement to national, racial, social and religious hatred and hostility”.
[5] Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United Kingdom Tahir Taghizadeh, in The Guardian, 6 November 2014, available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/azerbaijan-journey-towards-human-rights-committed.
[6] Concluding Observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee to the review of the Republic of Azerbaijan, 13 August 2009, paragraph 15, UN doc. CCPR/C/AZE/CO/3.
[7] Opinion no. 636 / 2011 of 19 October 2011. More information available at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/17215.html.
[8] In its interim resolution CM/ResDH(2014)183 of 25 September 2014, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe reiterated its concern over the arbitrary application of criminal legislation to limit freedom of expression, stating that “the present situation raises serious concerns, in particular on account of the reported recent use of different criminal laws […] against journalists, bloggers, lawyers and members of NGOs”, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2239635&Site=CM.
[9] Most recently, harassement against Khadija Ismayilova increased, including a travel ban imposed on her. She was also excessively searched and obstructed at the airport in Baku, upon her return from a PACE session in Strasbourg, where she spoke at a side-event on 2 October 2014. More information available at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/20515.html.
[10] Interim resolution CM/ResDH(2014)183 of 25 September 2014, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2239635&Site=CM.
11 Nov 14 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Statements, Campaigns, Statements
Azerbaijan’s six-month chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Europe’s top human rights body, comes to an end this week. During this period Azerbaijan unleashed an unprecedented crackdown against civil society—including the imprisonment of human rights defenders and political activists who criticised the government.
Index on Censorship joins the Civic Solidarity Platform’s call to the Council of Europe to put real pressure on Azerbaijan to reverse its actions and release all those who have been imprisoned on unfounded charges.
“The chairmanship turned into a demonstration of strength for the Azerbaijani government. It showed that evil can be stronger than values. The government used the chairmanship in an organisation which is based on human rights to prove to its citizens, and to the world, that money and power trump values. It is time to save these values, the commitments and the soul of the Council of Europe. Now,” said Azeri investigative journalist, Khadija Ismayilova.
The Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, and its democratic member states must confront Azerbaijan and consider punitive measures in response to this crackdown. To date, the Council of Europe has responded with nothing more than statements of condemnation. Azerbaijan’s actions are an attack to European institutions and values, and this must not go unnoticed.
Those imprisoned during Azerbaijan’s chairmanship (14 May – 13 November 2014) include:
– Anar Mammadli, election monitor who received the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize.
– Leyla Yunus, justice advocate who received the French Legion of Honor.
– Rasul Jafarov, human rights campaigner who criticized Azerbaijan at the Council of Europe and compiled with Layla Yunus a list of 100 political prisoners in Azerbaijan.
– Intigam Aliyev, human rights lawyer who criticized Azerbaijan at the Council of Europe.
For more information please contact:
Simon Papuashvili, [email protected]
Andrei Aliaksandrau, [email protected]
Melody Patry, [email protected]
11 Nov 14 | Egypt, News and features, Press Releases, Religion and Culture
Graffiti artists, cartoonists, dancers and actors are fighting back against rising levels of violence and sexism in the streets of Cairo, according to a new documentary from freedom of expression charity Index on Censorship.
Documentary maker Melody Patry interviewed actors, dancers and other artists around Egypt, where 99% of women have experienced some form of sexual harassment, and 80% feel unsafe on the street. Sexual violence has risen sharply in Egypt in the past few years. During the period February 2011 to January 2014, Egyptian women’s rights groups documented thousands of cases of sexual harassment, as well as crimes of sexual violence against at least 500 women, including gang rapes and mob-sexual assaults with sharp objects and fingers.
With police, politicians and the judiciary seeming incapable of tackling the issue effectively, activists are turning to the arts to help lead the fight back. “Art is one of the most necessary mediums to impact society,” says Deena Mohamed who created a web-comic about a hijab-wearing superheroine who fights daily sexual harassment. “For people who are unaware of the issues women go through, I hope it helps them understand or at least give them something to think about.”
An interactive documentary intended as a “living report” that will be continuously updated, Shout Art Loud shows how Cairo residents are using different tactics to fight rising sexual harassment, including pro-women graffiti, drama workshops and street performances.
“We believe that spreading images, things that people are familiar with, women figures that people know and sayings that people know brings back some positivity about women in general,” says Merna Thomas, co-founder of a graffiti campaign to promote women’s rights in Cairo’s public spaces.
See how Egyptians are using theatre, dance, music and street art to tackle the issue of sexual harassment and violence against women in Egypt in this interactive documentary, which features interviews with artists, original artwork, videos and performances, including from Index’s 2014 Freedom of Expression Arts Award winner Mayam Mahmoud. You can access the documentary here: indexoncensorship.org/shoutartloud
“This innovative documentary is a reminder of the vital role artistic expression plays in tackling taboo subjects like sexual violence — in Egypt and beyond,” said Index CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “We want to bring this issue to a wider audience to show just how important artists and writers can be in bringing about change, and to tell the story in a new way.”
For further information and interview requests, please call +44 (0)207 260 2660
10 Nov 14 | China, News and features, Tibet
![Photo: Wolfgang H. Wögerer, Vienna, Austria [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Vienna_2012-05-26_-_Europe_for_Tibet_Solidarity_Rally_158_Lobsang_Sangay.jpg)
Lobsang Sangay at a solidarity rally for Tibet in 2012 (Photo: Wolfgang H. Wögerer, Vienna, Austria [CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons)
It was not, to say the least, what he had been expecting. Just a few weeks earlier, Sangay had become Tibet’s new political leader, taking over all political authority from the Dalai Lama after winning an election held among exiled Tibetans all across the world. It had been his first day in parliament in Dharamsala, where the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) is based, and his entire cabinet had just been unanimously approved — a cause for celebration.
Yet that same day, a top-secret memo about an upcoming visit to the US had somehow been obtained from the government’s computers, and leaked into the public domain. “Everything was supposed to be very confidential, and the memo was only meant for three people in Washington DC,” Sangay tells Pao-Pao.
His assistants recommended cancelling the trip altogether. “It’s all out,” they told Sangay. “Nothing is a secret.” Their worries were not unwarranted. The Chinese government had started pressuring the American politicians listed in the memo to cancel their meeting with Sangay. Still, he pushed ahead. “I said: ‘We are going to Washington DC, on the same dates as described in the memo, and we are meeting with the same people as in the memo. That’s the only way we can respond to Beijing’s bullying.’”
Security upgrade
In the end, the visit went ahead as planned. But the attack was a shock to Sangay. “First of all, that Beijing is so capable of penetrating our computers that they can get at even our very confidential memos,” he says. “But also, that when I came back to the office, they were logging into every computer in the office and trying to shut it down, trying to track down which computer was affected with a virus and how they stole the secret memo. The whole place was shut down.”
It wasn’t the first time that the Tibetan administration had found itself under Chinese cyber attack. In 2008, the large-scale cyber spying operation Ghostnet managed to extract emails and other data from the CTA. Ghostnet also affected other Tibet-related organisations, as well as embassies and government organisations across the world. A year later, ShadowNet was employed, which researchers from the Infowar Monitor (IWM) at the University of Toronto called a form of “cyber espionage 2.0”.
The IWM researchers were able to establish that the hackers worked from within China, but they have been hesitant to link these hackers to the Chinese government due to a lack of direct evidence. However, an American cable released by Wikileaks describes a “sensitive report” that was able to establish a connection between the attackers’ location and the Chinese army.
The 2011 attack propelled Sangay to tighten the administration’s digital security. “At the time, there was a different mindset about it: ‘Oh, we can’t do much about it, Beijing can do whatever it wants,’” he recalls. Sangay, who was an outsider to Tibetan politics and had spent the sixteen years before he was elected at Harvard Law School, didn’t agree. “I thought that we could upgrade our security to a certain level. Now, even if we have a virus, it’s only on one computer, we can isolate it.”
But while the CTA’s office might no longer grind to a halt when a computer is infected, attacks have continued unabated. In 2012, a Chinese cyber attack infiltrated at least 30 computer systems of Tibetan advocacy groups for over ten months. In 2013, the CTA’s website Tibet.net was compromised in a so-called watering hole attack, which allows hackers to spy on and subsequently attack website visitors.
Greg Walton, an internet security researcher at Oxford University, is concerned at the growing number of these watering hole attacks. When they are combined with attacks that exploit software vulnerabilities, he argues that “there is essentially no defence for the end user, and no amount of awareness or training will mitigate the threat.”
Sangay does not believe that absolute security is possible. “Beijing is still, I am sure, trying to steal things. And I am sure they are successful, in some sense. But we also have to try to make it a little more difficult,” he says. “I assume my email is being read on a daily basis. The Pentagon, the CIA, multinational companies are all being hacked, and they are spending hundreds of millions to protect themselves.”
Sangay throws up his hands: “Poor me! My administration’s budget is around 50 plus million dollars. Even if I would spend my whole budget to protect my email account, that still wouldn’t be enough.”
No attachment, please
Sangay does believe that many problems can be avoided with a few basic precautions. He uses very long passwords for instance, and changes them often to prevent hacks of his own email account. And, he says: “You always have to follow Buddha’s message. What would Buddha say if you send him an email? ‘No attachment please!’” Sangay laughs. “One of the cardinal sins in Buddhism is attachment. Well, Buddha’s lessons, who said that 2,500 years ago, are still valid.”
Holding himself to “Buddha’s teachings” has prevented Sangay from getting his computer infected many times — although there have been some close calls. Take for example the time Time magazine’s editor Hanna Beech emailed him, a week prior to a scheduled interview in Dharamsala.
“She sent me the ten questions she would ask me. I found that very generous, journalists sending me questions ahead of time!” Sangay was about to download the attachment — but then he paused. “I grew a bit suspicious, so I decided to write back to her to ask if it was really her.” Beech said it wasn’t.
The attack was sophisticated, but not uncommon, Sangay says. “We get that on a daily basis, literally; some Tibetan support group or someone from our office sends an email that will contain a virus.”
Strengthening bonds
For the Tibetan government, digital communications have offered Chinese hackers a welcome point of attack. But Sangay also emphasises the positive sides of the internet: “Despite the [Great] Firewall, information breaks through, and is exchanged. That is happening, and that is not something that the Chinese government or any other government can prevent.”
He points to the 2008 protests in Tibet as one example. In the protests, which some dubbed “the cellphone revolution”, written reports, videos and photos from eyewitnesses were able to make their way to the rest of the world via mobile phones.
Additionally, the internet has allowed the Tibetan Central Administration in Dharamsala, home of about 100,000 Tibetans, to strengthen its bonds with the approximately 50,000 exiled Tibetans living elsewhere. Sangay says that the exile community — “scattered across some forty countries” — keeps in touch mainly through the internet.
“The internet has been very vital. The other day, I was speaking to Tibetans in Belgium. I asked them how many log in to Tibet.net, our website, and how many watch Tibetan online TV. About 40% raised their hands.” Tibetans from inside Tibet even manage to send Sangay “one-off messages” via Facebook from time to time. “Things like: ‘I wish you well’, from Facebook accounts that are immediately deleted.”
Dangerous, but helpful
Tibetans inside and outside of China now also communicate constantly via WeChat, but that is not without danger. A year ago, two monks in Tibet were arrested and jailed after posting pictures of self-immolations via the chat app. “Many say it’s very dangerous, because it’s an app by a Chinese company,” Sangay concedes. Still, he also considers it “very helpful and informative” as long as it is used to discuss safe topics.
The Tibetan administration consciously abstains from contacting Tibetans inside China “for fear that we might jeopardise them,” Sangay says. “We get a little less than 100,000 readers to our website every month, and we know many are from inside Tibet and China as well. We know it’s happening, but we really don’t make deliberate efforts [to contact them], and we also don’t keep track.”
Skyping with Woeser
Since Sangay was elected, it has been too risky for him to keep in touch with Tibetans in China via the internet. But before his election, like many others, he was in touch with those inside China almost every day. During his years at Harvard, he often Skyped with the famed Tibetan blogger and activist Tsering Woeser.
“It almost became an everyday ritual. I would go to the office, and then at a particular time I would log on and we would talk for half hour or more. Because her Tibetan wasn’t good, I became her unpaid, amateur Tibetan language teacher.” Sangay laughs as he recalls Woeser’s unsuccessful attempts to crack jokes in her — at the time — mediocre Tibetan.
Unfortunately, Sangay says he “had to stop talking to her for fear that I might endanger her”. But he still admires her work: “She is a good source of information. She compiles information from inside and shares with the rest of the world. She is very bold.” He considers bloggers like her an invaluable resource for those who want to know what life in Tibet is really like.
So will the internet ultimately be a force for good or evil? Sangay doesn’t know. “It all depends on who uses it. For good, if more good people use it.” On the one hand, he is in awe at how nowadays “in zero seconds, at almost zero cost, you can send vast volumes of information”. But he worries about the security side of the internet. “Ultimately, the [power] dynamic is so asymmetrical. One has wealth, and control over access to stronger and better technology, and one doesn’t.”
That, of course, is a power dynamic that the Tibetan leader has long ago gotten accustomed to. “I think the David and Goliath battle will go on, even on the internet,” Sangay says. “Ultimately, if David will prevail, we will have to see.”
This article is also available in Chinese at Pao-Pao.net
This article was posted on 10 November at indexoncensorship.org with permission from Pao-Pao.net
07 Nov 14 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Turkey
Kemal Göktaş (Photo: @kemalgoktas)
A Turkish journalist was charged on Tuesday for “insulting a public official“.
Kemal Göktaş, a reporter for Turkish paper Milliyet, faces up to two years and four months in prison for criticising the sentence of a police officer who beat a woman in custody. The victim called for eight years imprisonment, but the officer was handed down a one-year jail sentence.
Göktaş’s last article on the case appeared on Milliyet’s website on 6 October. He told Agos that his case is not only a violation of press freedom, but also a human rights violation. He is will testify on 14 November.
In 2009, Göktaş was acquitted of similar charges after publishing articles criticising “general surveillance permission“.
The incident was reported to mediafreedom.ushahihi.com, Index on Censorship’s media violations mapping project.
This article was originally posted on indexoncensorship.org
07 Nov 14 | Awards, Awards year slider
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” css_animation=”fadeIn” css=”.vc_custom_1485788605439{padding-top: 250px !important;padding-bottom: 250px !important;background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-logo-1460×490.png?id=81108) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1472525914065{margin-top: -150px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” content_placement=”middle”][vc_column_inner el_class=”awards-inside-desc” width=”1/2″][vc_custom_heading text=”FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AWARDS 2014″ use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship’s Freedom of Expression Awards exist to celebrate individuals or groups who have had a significant impact fighting censorship anywhere in the world.
- Awards were offered in four categories: Arts, Campaigning, Digital Activism and Journalism
- Winners were honoured at a gala celebration in London at the Barbican Centre
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW9QlnDVi2Q&list=PLlUhPA3TuB55ge1Ysq9HesLEzGOE6hG96″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1472608310682{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”WINNERS” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1477036676595{margin-top: 0px !important;}”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Shahzad Ahmad” title=”Advocacy Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”56254″]Shahzad Ahmad is one of the leading voices in the fight against online censorship in Pakistan. The country faces a deteriorating state of cyber freedom, as the government uses draconian censorship laws and increasing surveillance to police the internet. Ahmad is country director of Bytes4All. The group campaigns for internet rights and democracy by building capacity for human rights defenders, as well as advocacy and awareness-raising. Ahmad and Bytes4All have sued the Pakistani government over the suspected use of surveillance software, FinFisher – a piece of software that infects a computer and takes full control of it, intercepting Skype calls and allowing every keystroke the user types to be sent across the internet to another computer. Developed by UK-based company Gamma International, it has been used to target activists in Bahrain amongst other countries. He is also suing the government over its ongoing blocking of YouTube which deprives the country of one of the world’s most popular video channels.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Mayam Mahmoud” title=”Arts Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”81023″]Rapper Mayam Mahmoud uses hip-hop to address issues such as sexual harassment and to stand up for women’s rights in Egypt. Women played a significant role in the demonstrations that eventually toppled the regime of Hosni Mubarak in 2011. In the aftermath, however, the problem of sexual harassment has become what activists now describe as “an epidemic”. The 18-year-old rose to prominence through her appearances on the popular TV show Arabs Got Talent. Aged 12, she was introduced to poetry by her mother. She began writing her own work, which soon turned into rap — still a male dominated music genre across the world.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Shubhranshu Choudhary” title=”Digital Actvism Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”56255″]Journalist Shubhranshu Choudhary is the brain behind CGNet Swara (Voice of Chhattisgarh) a mobile-phone (no smartphone required) service that allows citizens to upload and listen to local reports in their local language. CGNet Swara is a vital tool giving people who are deprived of a voice and platform in mainstream media, on the wrong side of the digital divide, a chance to have a say on and learn about the issues that affect them the most. Furthermore, CGNet Swara also manages to circumvent India’s strict broadcast licensing laws. Choudhary estimates that there are some 100 million people in India for whom mainstream methods of communicating news don’t work, whether due to language barriers, low levels of literacy or lack of access to internet and newspapers among other things. This represents a serious barrier to their socio-economic development, as they are not updated on stories of importance to them, and their views and grievances and demands are not voiced and addressed.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Azadliq” title=”Journalism Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”56243″]One of the few remaining independent media outlets in Azerbaijan, the newspaper Azadliq has continued to report on government corruption and cronyism in spite of an increasing financial squeeze enforced by the authorities. The country likes to present itself as a modern democracy, but it is widely recognised as an authoritarian regime where opposition is often brutally cracked down on and critical voices silenced. In this environment, Azadliq works to hold the ruling Aliyev family, and the rest of the powerful elite in the country to account. The latest attacks on the paper came hot on the heels of the country’s 2013 presidential election, where Ilham Aliyev was reelected in a vote labelled flawed by the OSCE. The paper has been been the target of defamation suits that have resulted in £52,000 in fines. Courts found Azadliq guilty of “damaging” the business reputation of Kabira Mamedova, director of the Baku-based Bina shopping centre, and Taghi Ahmadov, CEO of the Baku Metro, after the paper published articles critical of their activities.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”JUDGING” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner el_class=”mw700″][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
Criteria – Anyone involved in tackling free expression threats – either through journalism, campaigning, the arts or using digital techniques – is eligible for nomination.
Any individual, group or NGO can nominate or self-nominate. There is no cost to apply.
Judges look for courage, creativity and resilience. We shortlist on the basis of those who are deemed to be making the greatest impact in tackling censorship in their chosen area, with a particular focus on topics that are little covered or tackled by others.
Nominees must have had a recognisable impact in the past 12 months.
Where a judge comes from a nominee’s country, or where there is any other potential conflict of interest, the judge will abstain from voting in that category.
Panel – Each year Index recruits an independent panel of judges – leading world voices with diverse expertise across campaigning, journalism, the arts and human rights.
The judges for 2014 were:
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Samira Ahmed” title=”Journalist and BBC broadcaster” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”80231″]Samira Ahmed is a British freelance journalist, writer and broadcaster at the BBC, where she has presented Radio 4’s PM, The World Tonight and Sunday. She also presented two Proms for BBC Four in 2011. On BBC Radio 3, Ahmed is one of the presenters of Night Waves. Her writing has appeared in The Guardian, The Independent and for The Spectator magazine’s Arts Blog. She was a reporter and presenter on Channel 4 News from 2000 to 2011. She presented Sunday Morning Live, a topical discussion programme on BBC One from 2012 to 2013.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Howard Brenton” title=”Playwright” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”80230″]Howard John Brenton is an English playwright and screenwriter.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Edward Fitzgerald QC CBE” title=”Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”80229″]Edward Hamilton Fitzgerald CBE QC is an English barrister who specialises in criminal law, public law, and international human rights law.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Stephen King” title=”Partner, Omidyar Network” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”80232″]Stephen King is a partner at Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment firm set up by Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay and his wife, Pam. King invests in technology platforms which drive improved government transparency and accountability worldwide.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1473325552363{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;padding-top: 0px !important;padding-right: 15px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;padding-left: 15px !important;}”][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1473325567468{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;padding-top: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;}”][awards_gallery_slider name=”GALLERY” images_url=”80990,80991,80992,80993,80994,80995,80996,80997,80998,80999,81000,81001,81003,81004,81005,81006,81008,81009,81010,81011,81012,81014,81016,81017,81018,81019,81020,81021,81022″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
06 Nov 14 | Events, News and features
Exhibit B (Photo: © Sofie Knijff / Barbican)
Exhibit B, The City, the Tricycle Theatre… Several high profile cases this past summer have ignited a debate about artistic censorship in the UK.
Join us as part of RADAR Festival at the Bush Theatre in London to explore the rights of the artist to free expression, to examine the role of arts institutions in defending and promoting free expression, and to ask the question: is it ever better to censor than to cause offence? The event features:
WHERE: Bush Theatre, London, W12 8LJ
WHEN: Thursday 13 November 2014, debate 9.00-10.00pm (following show 7.30-8.30pm)
TICKETS: £10 (early bird, including show) at www.bushtheatre.co.uk or 0208 743 5050 (box office)
Follow the discussion via the hashtag #RADAR2014
Co-produced by Index on Censorship and the Bush Theatre as part of the RADAR Festival.
![By Rama (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-2.0-fr (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons](https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2048px-Election_MG_3455.jpg)
