On 20 June 2018 the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster took evidence on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill 2018. During this session Max Hill QC spoke of the human rights implications of the bill and quoted Index on Censorship’s concerns about clause 3 on the “obtaining or viewing material over the internet”.
“Clearly there are risks to journalists and others,” Hill said. “They [Index] expressed concern about ‘the potential restrictive and frightening effect on researchers, students, academics and journalists, amongst others, who are researching case studies, making arguments and carrying out interviews.'”[/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:1530020508289-010a9f50-32d0-6″ taxonomies=”20″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Index editor Rachael Jolley said: “On travel websites for popular destinations like Mexico, Maldives and Malta there is little sign of the crackdown on freedoms we are seeing in these nations. From the horrific numbers of journalists being killed in Mexico, to the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, and anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka, with worshippers attacked on the way to mosques.
“I would like to see travel journalists do more to tell the whole story. With fewer travellers carrying print travel guides, which traditionally did give more background on political tensions and freedoms, digital versions need to step up to give travellers the full range of information, rather than just the glossy bits.”
“With many countries depending on travel spending as a vital part of their economy, the travel industry can also do more to press for change,” she added.
A discussion on the theme, will take place on 4 July at the Book Club in Shoreditch, chaired by BBC World journalist Vicky Baker. Panellists include former foreign correspondent Meera Selva, founder of the travel picture agency Picfair, Benji Lanyado, and Harriet Fitch Little, who writes for the Financial Times travel section, and formerly worked as a journalist in Lebanon.
Tourism is the main pillar of Mexico’s Baja California Sur’s economy, which is now the setting of some of the fiercest drug battles in the country. Conditions for journalists and human rights activists have deteriorated dramatically, according to the Index report Trouble in Paradise.
The security profile of Baja California Sur has changed enormously, but because it’s a tourist spot the government wants to hide that, Mexico correspondent Stephen Woodman writes in the Index report.
Journalist Federica Angeli, whose exposure of mafia in the pretty seaside town of Ostia, near Rome, has resulted in her having to live under 24-hour police protection. “Ostia is a paradise inhabited by demons,” Angeli told Index.
In Malta, where the recent murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia remains largely unsolved, Maltese journalist Caroline Muscat writes: “Those who mention her name, those who refuse to bow to a society bent by corruption, are insulted and threatened. Journalists and activists keep being reminded of the untold damage they are doing to the country’s reputation.”
Honeymoon destination the Maldives is also covered. The “disappearance” of a journalist, the killing of a blogger, death threats, imprisonment and hefty fines are placing an enormous pressure on those who seek to inform the public about what is going on, writes Zaheena Rasheed.
Just how much do these darker sides affect tourism? New data analysed exclusively for Index looks at the power of tourism spend, and just how valuable tourism is to economies such as Mexico and the Maldives.
Also in the magazine: how journalists’ conditions are deteriorating in Iraq, despite the retreat of Isis, Jon Savage on bands and bans, and Filipino news boss Maria Ressa on keeping going despite government pressure for her news operation to give up, plus a short story on the future of facial recognition by award-winning writer Jonathan Tel.
Index on Censorship magazine was first published in 1972 and remains the only global magazine dedicated to free expression. Since then, some of the greatest names in literature and academia have written for the magazine, including Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Amartya Sen, Samuel Beckett, as well as Arthur Miller and Harold Pinter. The magazine continues to attract great writers, passionate arguments, and expose chilling stories of censorship and violence. It is the only global free expression magazine.
Each quarterly magazine is filled with reports, analysis, photography and creative writing from around the world. Index on Censorship magazine is published four times a year by Sage, and is available in print, online and mobile/tablets (iPhone/iPad, Android, Kindle Fire).
Winner of the British Society of Magazine Editors 2016 Editor of the Year in the special interest category.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Trouble in paradise” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2F2018%2F06%2Ftrouble-in-paradise%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The summer 2018 issue of Index on Censorship magazine takes a special look at how holidaymakers’ images of palm-fringed beaches and crystal clear waters contrast with the reality of freedoms under threat
With: Ian Rankin, Victoria Hislop, Maria Ressa [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”100776″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/2018/06/trouble-in-paradise/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”101140″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Indians took to Twitter to express their frustration after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) pushed the release of the film Love, Simon back indefinitely.
Originally slated to be released on 1 June, Love, Simon was eagerly awaited by some Indian moviegoers, who attempted to purchase advance tickets only to be denied. Soon after the hashtag #ReleaseLoveSimoninIndia began trending.
Love, Simon is a film based on the book Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agendawritten by Becky Albertalli in 2015. Simon is a 17-year old boy in high school who despite having close, loving and supportive relationships with his friends and family keeps his homosexual identity a secret from them. This is the first major gay romantic comedy film to be released by a major US studio. Fox 2000 rolled it out in the US, where the movie had a favourable response from both critics and movie-goers.
According to an anonymous source cited by The Free Press India, the CBFC decided against allowing the film to be shown because there is “no audience” for it. This assertion flies in the face of the film’s worldwide success and vocal supporters within India.
“I doubt that it can be said that the film has “no interest” but rather it has less popularity than other mainstream foreign movies, the reason being India is deeply homophobic but I don’t think that justifies not releasing it,” Ruth Chawngthu, the digital editor at Feminism in India and co-founder of Nazariya LGBT, told Index on Censorship via email. “I could be wrong but to my knowledge the film creators decided to not release it so perhaps the concerned persons should petition them instead? I personally don’t have strong feelings regarding the issue because it’s mostly the privileged upper class who are concerned about it. They were focused on the movie while ignoring the fact that members of the LGBT community were facing violence in different parts of the country at the same time.”
The CBFC states that it stands in the way of “[moral] corruption [as social depravity] has been one of the major obstacles to economic, political and social progress of [India].” This is in relation to Penal Code 377, a leftover from the Victorian era when India was a part of the British empire, and has yet to be changed due to social anxiety around the LBGT+ community. While India is in the process of reconsidering its 377 Penal Code which criminalizes “unnatural relations with man, women, and animal”, the diverse traditional religious communities within India and social stigma hold back public opinion.
Indians took to Twitter to express their opinions on the indefinite delay on Love, Simon’s release: [/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Politicians such as Rajya Sabha MP and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy feel justified in delaying the release of the film to “protect the culture of India”. Twitter users raved that Love, Simon would have been a landmark film that would humanize the LBGT+ community in India. However, at the tail end of International Pride Month, the film has still yet to be released. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
ان الاضطرار الى القفز من سيارة للهروب من الاختطاف تحت تهديد السلاح على يد الجيش الباكستاني لم يكن الطريقة التي أراد بها الصحفي طه صديقي بدء رحلته إلى لندن.
كان صديقي ، وهو مراسل شبكة فرانس ٢٤ وموقع WION الإخباري الهندي في باكستان ، قد أثار حفيظة الجيش الباكستاني بسبب تقاريره عن قضايا الأمن القومي وانتقاداته على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي.
في ١٠ يناير / كانون الثاني ، لحقت المشاكل به أخيرا بينما كان يستقل سيارة أجرة الى المطار باستخدام “كريم” ، وهي خدمة سيارات أجرة مشهورة في العاصمة إسلام أباد. فجأة أجبرت سيارة على متنها رجال مسلحون سائق السيارة على التوقف. ثم تعرض صديقي للضرب على جانب الطريق السريع وأجبره الرجال على ركوب السيارة وبدأوا في اقتياده بعيداً.
تُعرف وسائل الإعلام الباكستانية بتغطيتها الإخبارية الحيوية والمتنوعة. لكن الصحافيين في البلاد يواجهون تهديدات ليس فقط من قبل الجماعات المتطرفة مثل طالبان ولكن أيضا من قبل الجيش ووكالات الاستخبارات.
تحتل البلاد المرتبة ١٣٩ من بين ١٨٠ دولة على مؤشر حرية الصحافة لمنظمة مراسلون بلا حدود ، وفي الأشهر الأخيرة تم حظر وسائل الإعلام المستقلة مثل “جيو تي في” وجريدة “داون” من التوزيع. وفي وقت سابق من هذا الشهر ، تعرض مراسلان لهجوم في لاهور بعد وقت قصير من إدانة متحدث عسكري لما سمّاه ملاحظات “المعادية للدولة” كان أدلى بها صحفيون على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي.
كما قال صديقي لصحيفة غلوبال جورناليست ، فإنه تمكن من الفرار من آسريه وإبلاغ الشرطة بالاعتداء. لم تكن محاولة الاختطاف تلك هي المرة الأولى التي واجه فيها صديقي مشاكل مع الجيش الباكستاني. في عام ٢٠١٥ ، تم تهديده بعد أن شارك في كتابة مقال مطول في صحيفة نيويورك تايمز تشرح بالتفصيل كيف أخفى الجيش قسرياً العشرات من أعضاء حركة طالبان الباكستانية المشتبه بهم. وتضمنت هذه المقالة مزاعم بأن بعض أولئك المختفين تعرضوا للتجويع والتعذيب والقتل.
كما تم تهديده اثر مشاركته في إعداد تقرير لصالح فرانس ٢٤ ينتقد تعامل الجيش الباكستاني مع مذبحة في مدرسة في بيشاور في عام ٢٠١٤ والتي خلفت أكثر من ١٥٠ قتيلاً. كما واجه صديقي ضغوطا العام الماضي بعد نشره على تويتر انتقادا للجيش بسبب “تمجيده” للحكام الديكتاتوريين السابقين والتغطية على دوره في التسبب في حرب عام ١٩٦٥ مع الهند.
يجب على الجناح الإعلامي للجيش الباكستاني أن يتوقف عن تمجيد الدكتاتوريين السابقين…
في مايو ٢٠١٧، تم استدعاؤه للاستجواب من قبل إدارة مكافحة الإرهاب التابعة للشرطة الفيدرالية على الرغم من صدور أمر من المحكمة بمنعهم من مضايقته. في سبتمبر ، تم استدعاء صديقي للقاء المتحدث باسم الجيش ، الجنرال آصف غفور. في مقابلة ، قال صديقي إن غفور أخبره أنه إذا لم يتوقف عن انتقاداته ، “فسوف أوقع نفسي في مشكلة”.
لم يرد غفور على الرسائل التي تلتمس التعليق من غلوبال جورناليست. لم تقع مشكلة لصديقي بعدها حتى هجوم يناير ، ولكن لا يمكن لصديقي أن يحدّد أي حادثة بعينها كسبب لما حدث له. ويقول في مقابلة مع غلوبال جورناليست:” لا أعرف أي تقرير أو مقالة أو فيديو تسبّب بذلك، أو ما اذا كان ما حدث مجرّد نتيجة لنشاطي على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي؟”
بعد أسابيع من الهجوم ، قرر صديقي مغادرة باكستان إلى فرنسا لأسباب أمنية. قبل مغادرته ، يقول إنه التقى بوزير الداخلية الباكستاني آنذاك ، احسن اقبال. يقول صديقي أن إقبال أخبره أنه يجب عليه أن يكتب رسالة إلى الجنرال قمر باجوا ، قائد الجيش الباكستاني ، وأن يتوسل منه المغفرة. لم يرد إقبال ولا باجوا على طلباتنا للإدلاء بتعليق.
اليوم، يقيم صديقي البالغ من العمر ٣٤ عاما مع زوجته وابنه البالغ من العمر أربعة أعوام في باريس حيث يعمل بدوام جزئي مع شركة بابل برس الإعلامية وهو يبحث عن وظيفة بدوام كامل. وتحدث مع روزماري بيلسون من غلوبال جورناليست ، عن الهجوم عليه وهربه من بلده.
غلوبال جورناليست: هل يمكن أن تخبرنا عن التقارير التي تسببت لك بالمشاكل؟
صديقي: الجيش يتدخل بالسياسة في باكستان. لديهم شركات ، وهم يشاركون في انتهاكات حقوق الإنسان ، وفي التعليم.
خلال تغطية أي قضية في باكستان ، عادة ما نجد أنه يمكن تعقبها إلى الجيش بطريقة أو بأخرى. من المستحيل القيام بالعمل الصحفي دون الحديث عن الجيش ومشاركته في مجموعة واسعة من القضايا في باكستان.
مثلا المقالة التي كتبتها لصالح صحيفة نيويورك تايمز. ظهرت على الصفحة الأولى لصحيفة نيويورك تايمز الدولية في عام ٢٠١٥. كانت مقالة عن السجون السرية العسكرية حيث كانوا يقتلون المتشددين المشتبه بهم. كانوا يقتلونهم خارج نطاق القضاء داخل السجون. اكتشفت حوالي ١٠٠ إلى ٢٥٠ حالة في جميع أنحاء باكستان ، لا سيما في الحزام القبلي [في شمال غرب باكستان].
حتى في ذلك الوقت ، اعتقدت صحيفة نيويورك تايمز أنه من سيكون من الخطر أن يتم نشر اسمي ككاتب تلك المقالة. ولكني أردت وضع اسمي عليها ، فكانت تلك هي المرة الأولى التي بدأت فيها في تلقي تهديدات مباشرة.
كانت هناك دائماً رسائل غير مباشرة تأتي الي من خلال أصدقاء في مجال الصحافة أو أصدقاء في الحكومة يقولون إنني يجب أن أتوخى الحذر … كانت تلك التهديدات تأتي باستمرار. حتى إلى الحد الذي طلب عنده من أصدقائي ومعارفي أن يبتعدوا عني.
غلوبال جورناليست: حدّثنا عنمحاولة الاختطاف.
صديقي: في ١٠ كانون الثاني / يناير كنت أتجه إلى المطار للحاق برحلة عمل إلى لندن. في الأسبوع الذي سبقه كنت أعمل على مقالة حول الأشخاص المخفيين قسرياً. كان من المفترض أن ارسل المقالة من المطار لأنه لم يكن لدي [وقت] لإرسالها قبل ذلك، لذلك أخذت [القرص الصلب] والكمبيوتر المحمول معي.
جاءت سيارة “كريم” في حوالي الساعة الثامنة صباحًا وكان موعد رحلتي في وقت الظهر. في منتصف الطريق إلى المطار على الطريق السريع الرئيسي في إسلام آباد ، انحرفت سيارة أمامنا وتوقفت. خرج رجال مسلحون من السيارة يحملون مسدسات وبنادق كلاشينكوف.
في البداية ، ظننت أنها حالة من الغضب على الطرق أو عملية سرقة، ولكن أحدهم اقترب من جانبي وصوب سلاحه نحوي وقال شيئًا مفاده: “أنت من تخال نفسك؟”
خرجت وافترضت أن هذا كان له علاقة بالتهديدات التي كنت أتلقاها. حاولت الهرب لكنهم طرحوني بالأسفل على قارعة الطريق. عندها لاحظت وجود سيارة أخرى خلفي وأشخاص يخرجون منها أيضًا. قاموا بإقامة حواجز حولي ، وكان هذا [على] الطريق السريع الرئيسي في الساعة ٨:٣٠ صباحاً ، وكانت حركة المرور نشطة … بدأوا في ضربي وأرادوا أن يأخذوني بعيداً.
كنت أقاوم فراحوا يضربونني بأعقاب بنادقهم … وركلي. أخيرًا ، قال أحدهم: “أطلق النار عليه في ساقه إذا لم يتوقف عن المقاومة لأننا يجب أن نأخذه”.
أدركت عندها أنهم كانوا جادين في نيتهم إطلاق النار علي. في وقت سابق ، [عندما] لم يطلقوا النار علي في الحال، اعتقدت أنه ربما يعني أنهم قد يريدون أخذي على قيد الحياة. اعتقدت أن المقاومة قد تبتاع لي بعض الوقت. رأيت سيارة عسكرية تمر. ناديت عليهم طلبًا للمساعدة ولكنها لم تتوقف.
بعد تعرضي للتهديد بإطلاق النار علي في ساقي ، وضعوني في سيارة الأجرة ، وأخرجوا السائق. قاد شخص واحد السيارة فيما جلس شخصان معي في الخلف وواحد في المقدّمة. كانوا يمسكونني في وضعية الخنق مع مسدس مصوب إلى الجانب الأيسر من جسدي قرب معدتي.
قلت له: “سوف أذهب معكم. هل يمكنك الاسترخاء قليلاً وأن تسمح لي بالاسترخاء أيضًا ، [و] الجلوس بشكل مستقيم؟”
أرخى الرجل ذراعه وأرخى البندقية. هنا أدركت أن الباب الخلفي الأيمن للسيارة لم يكن مقفولا. فتحته. قفزت، ثم ركضت إلى الجانب الآخر من الطريق جاريا بعكس السير. حاولت أن أبحث عن سيارة أجرة. كنت أسمعهم ورائي وهم يصرخون ويقولون: “أطلق النار عليه”!
لكنني ركضت وأخيراً وجدت سيارة أجرة. ركبت فيها بينما كانت تتحرّك. فتحت الباب ، وقفزت الى داخلها. أخذتني سيارة الأجرة ٧٠٠ أو ٨٠٠ متر قبل أن يدرك السائق أن شيئا غريبا قد حدث و [السائق] لم يرغب في مساعدتي. طلب مني الخروج اذ كانت السيارة مشغولة بالفعل من قبل بعض النساء.
هنا طه صديقي (@TahaSSiddiqui) باستخدامحساب سيريل. كنت في طريقي إلى المطار اليوم في الساعة ٨:٢٠ صباحا عندما أوقف ١٠-١٢ رجال مسلحون سيارة الأجرة الخاصة بي وحاولوا قسرا أن يختطفوني. تمكنت من الفرار. أنا بأمان ومع الشرطة الآن. أبحث عن الدعم بأي طريقة ممكنة.
خرجت من سيارة الأجرة. على جانب الطريق ، كانت هناك بعض الخنادق ومنطقة مستنقعات ، فقفزت في اتجاهها واختبأت هناك قليلاً. خلعت سترتي الحمراء لأنني كنت قلقة من أنها سوف تسهّل عليهم رؤيتي … قمنا لاحقاً باسترداد السترة مع الشرطة.
ثم وجدت سيارة أجرة أخرى. طلبت استخدام هاتف [السائق]. اتصلت بصديق صحفي وسألته ماذا علي أن أفعل. اقترح أن أذهب إلى أقرب مركز شرطة وأخذني سائق سيارة الأجرة هناك. قدمت محضرا بالحادث متهما الجيش الباكستاني بالوقوف وراءه. كذلك قمت بالتغريد عنه من حساب صديق لأنهم أخذوا هاتفي ، وجواز السفر ، وحقيبة السفر ، وحقيبة الكمبيوتر المحمول. لم يكن معي سوى محفظتي.
غلوبال جورناليست:كيف اتخذت قرار مغادرة باكستان؟
صديقي: كشف التحقيق الذي أجرته الشرطة أن كاميرات [المراقبة] في المنطقة كانت لا تعمل. ووجدوا أن إحدى السيارات التي أوقفتني كانت تتبعني من منزلي لكنهم لم يتمكنوا من التعرف على أي من الوجوه داخل السيارة لأن [النوافذ] كانت داكنة وكانت لوحة الرخصة مزيفة.
دعيت [إلى اجتماع] مع وزير الداخلية الباكستاني [أحسن اقبال]. واقترح علي أن أكتب رسالة إلى قائد الجيش الباكستاني [الجنرال قمر باجوا]. هنا أدركت أن الحكومة كانت عاجزة تمامًا.
اقترح الناس أن أسافر بعيدًا لأن (الخاطفين) لم يتموا المهمة وقد يعودوا مرة أخرى، خاصة وأنني لم أكن أنوي أن أبقى صامتًا، كما اقترح بعض أصدقائي الصحافيين الكبار الذين أداروا ظهرهم إليّ في هذه المحنة.
لقد كان ذلك مخيبا للآمال حقا ومحبطا أي رؤية مجتمع الصحافيين لا يدعمونني. لقد دعمتني وسائل الإعلام الدولية ، ودعمني بعض الصحفيين المحليين ، لكن بعض الأشخاص الذين أعرفهم شخصياً اعتقدوا أنني كنت أتبع مسارا خاطئا من خلال التعبير عن رأيي بشأن الهجوم.
جلست مع وزوجتي …وناقشنا الموضوع. لم نخبر طفلنا في ذلك الوقت ولكنني أخبرته بلطف عن وجود مشكلة تتعلق بالسلامة بالنسبة لي وأنه كان علينا أن ننتقل.
قررنا أن نغادر. وقررنا أنه اذا غادرنا، فلا يجب أن يكون الأمر لمدة ثلاثة أو ستة أشهر فقط ، لأنني أحارب قوى غير مرئية في بلدي. لن أعلم ما إذا كنت قد فزت أو خسرت أو ما إذا كانوا لا يزالون ينوون ملاحقتي أم لا.
اخترنا باريس لأنني كنت أعمل مع وسائل الإعلام الفرنسية خلال السنوات السبع أو الثماني الماضية كصحفي لصالح فرنسا ٢٤ كما أنني حصلت على النسخة الفرنسية لجائزة بوليتزر (جائزة ألبرت لوندرز) في عام ٢٠١٤ ، لذلك كنت أتمتع بدعم قوي من الصحفيين والمجتمع هنا.
غلوبال جورناليست: كيف تغيرت الحريات الإعلامية في باكستان مع مرور الوقت؟
صديقي: كانت حرية الصحافة دائما عرضة للهجوم. لقد مررنا بالعديد من الديكتاتوريات العسكرية في باكستان … خلال الستينيات والسبعينيات والثمانينيات في القرن العشرين.
لقد تغير شيئان في السنوات الأخيرة. أولا ، نحن كصحفيين لم نعد نعرف ما هي الخطوط الحمراء. في حالتي ، لا أعرف ما هي القصة أو المقالة أو الفيديو الذي تسبب في ما حدث. أم هل كان ذلك بسبب نشاطي على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي ؟
ثانياً ، يتم الآن استعمال الجهات الفاعلة من غير الدول (المترجم: المليشيات) ضد الصحفيين بشكل يسمح للجيش أن يختبئ خلف تلك الجهات لإنجاز المهمة.
لقد ضمن الجيش أن لا يعود التضامن بين الصحفيين كما كان عليه من قبل. لقد فعلوا ذلك من خلال الإكراه المالي أو المكافآت المالية … لقد تقلصت المساحة المخصصة للصحفيين. أصبح الجيش أكثر تشددا وتكتيكاته للسيطرة على الإعلام أصبحت أكثر عنفاً. أرى أن الوضع سوف يزداد سوءًا في الأيام القادمة.
كل هذا يحتاج إلى وضعه في السياق الصحيح. إنها سنة انتخابات في باكستان. يريد الجيش الباكستاني أن نكون له أكبر مساحة ممكنة للتلاعب في الانتخابات لتحقيق مكاسب استراتيجية. إنهم لا يريدون أن يأتي الحزب الحاكم [الرابطة الإسلامية الباكستانية – نواز] الى السلطة مرة أخرى بأغلبية مشابهة لما يتمتعون به الآن. لذا للتأكد من إمكانية التلاعب في الانتخابات بسهولة ، فإنهم يحاولون خلق بيئة من الخوف لا يمكن أن تعيش فيها الصحافة المستقلة.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has won Turkey‘s presidential election for the second time. His victory will mean he has a tighter hold of his country. What was the result of the election? With a high voter turnout of 87 per cent, Mr Erdogan hailed victory in the presidential poll on Sunday. He managed to overcome what many considered was an opposition party that had been gaining momentum. Read in full.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”101034″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Jumping out of a car to escape being abducted at gunpoint by the Pakistani military isn’t exactly how journalist Taha Siddiqui planned to start his trip to London.
Siddiqui, then a Pakistan correspondent for the network France 24 and the Indian news site WION, had angered the South Asian nation’s military with his reporting on national security issues and critical posts on social media.
On 10 January the problems caught up with him as he rode to the airport in a Careem, a popular ride-hailing service in the capital Islamabad. A car with armed men in it forced Siddiqui’s driver to stop. He was beaten by the side of the highway and the men forced him into the back of a vehicle and started to drive off with him.
Pakistani media is noted for its lively and diverse news coverage. Yet reporters in the country face threats not just from extremist groups like the Taliban but from the military and intelligence agencies.
The country ranks 139th out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, and in recent months independent media like Geo TV and Dawn newspaper have been blocked from distribution. Earlier this month two reporters were attacked in Lahore shortly after a military spokesman condemned “anti-state” remarks made by journalists on social media.
As Siddiqui told Global Journalist, he was able to escape from his captors and report the attack to the police. The kidnapping attempt wasn’t the first time Siddiqui had problems with Pakistan’s military. In 2015, he was threatened after he co-wrote a lengthy New York Times article detailing how the military had disappeared dozens of suspected Pakistani Taliban members. The article included allegations that some of those disappeared were starved, tortured and killed.
He was also threatened after helping produce a France 24 report critical of the Pakistani army’s handling of a 2014 school massacre in Peshawar that left over 150 dead. Siddiqui had also faced pressure last year after posting tweets critical of the military’s “glorifying” of past dictators and its whitewashing of its role in fomenting a 1965 war with India.
In May 2017 he was summoned for questioning by the federal police’s counter-terrorism department despite a court order banning them from harassing him. In September, Siddiqui was called to meet with the military’s spokesman, Gen. Asif Ghafoor. In an interview, Siddiqui says Ghafoor told him that if he didn’t stop his criticism, “I would get myself into trouble.”
Ghafoor did not respond to messages seeking comment from Global Journalist. Yet trouble didn’t come until the January attack, and Siddiqui can’t point to one specific incident as a cause.
“I don’t know what specific story, article or video triggered it,” he says in an interview with Global Journalist. “Or was it just my social media activity?”
Weeks after the attack, Siddiqui, decided to leave Pakistan for France for security reasons. Before he left, he says he met with Pakistan’s then interior minister, Ahsan Iqbal. Iqbal, Siddiqui says, told the journalist he should write a letter to Gen. Qamar Bajwa, Pakistan’s army chief, and beg for forgiveness. Neither Iqbal nor Bajwa responded to requests for comment.
Now 34, Siddiqui lives with his wife and 4-year-old son in Paris, where he is working part-time with the media company Babel Press and looking for a full-time job. He spoke with Global Journalist’s Rosemary Belson about his attack and flight from his homeland.
Global Journalist: Can you tell us about the reporting that landed you in hot water?
Siddiqui: The military is politically-involved in Pakistan. They have businesses, they are involved in human rights abuses, education.
When reporting in Pakistan about any particular issue, usually you end up tracking it back to the military in some way or another. It’s impossible to report without talking about the military and its involvement in a wide range of issues in Pakistan.
I refer to a story that I did for the New York Times. It came out on the front page of the International New York Times in 2015. It was a story about military secret prisons where they were killing suspected militants. They were extrajudicially killing them inside the jails. I uncovered about 100 to 250 cases across Pakistan, especially in the Tribal Belt [in northwest Pakistan].
Even at that time, the New York Times thought it was quite risky for my name to go on it. But I wanted my byline on it and that was the first time I started receiving direct threats.
There were always indirect messages coming in through friends in the journalism business or friends in the government saying that I should be careful… Constantly on and off these threats would come. Even to the extent where my friends and people I socialized with were told to stay away from me.
GJ: Walk us through the attempted abduction.
Siddiqui: On 10 January I was headed to the airport to catch a flight to London for work. The week before that I was working on a story about missing persons. I was supposed to file the story from the airport because I didn’t have [time] to file it before, so I took [my] hard drive and laptop.
My Careem came around 8 a.m. for my flight at noon. Halfway to the airport on the main Islamabad highway, a car swerved in front of me and stopped. Armed men got out of the vehicle with pistols and AK-47s.
At first, I thought it was a case of road rage or robbery, but one of them approached from my side and pointed his gun towards me and said something along the lines of: “Who do you think you are?”
I got out and assumed that this had something to do with the threats I had been receiving. I tried to run away but they pinned me down on the road. That’s when I noticed there was another car behind me with people coming out of it as well. They made a barricade around me, and this was [on] the main highway at 8:30 in the morning, with traffic…they started beating me and wanted to take me away.
I was resisting and they kept hitting me with the butts of their guns…and kicking me. Finally, one of them said, “Shoot him in the leg if he doesn’t stop resisting because we have to take him.”
That’s when I realized they were serious about shooting me. Earlier, [when] they didn’t shoot me right away, I thought perhaps it means they want to take me alive. In my mind I was thinking that resistance would give me some lifeline. I saw a military vehicle passing by. I called out for help but it didn’t stop.
After being threatened by being shot in the leg, they put me in the taxi, and took out the driver. One person drove while two people sat with me in the back and one in the front. They were holding me in a headlock with a gun pointing to the left side of my body on my stomach.
I told him, “I’m going with you. Can you relax for a little bit and let me relax also, [and] sit up straight?”
The guy relaxed his arm and gun. That’s when I realized the right back door of the car was unlocked. I went for it, opened it. I jumped out, ran to the other side of the road with oncoming traffic. I tried to look for a taxi. I could hear behind me they were shouting and saying, “Shoot him!”
But I just ran and finally I found a taxi. I got into it while it was moving. I opened the door, jumped into it. The taxi took me 700 or 800 meters before realizing there was something wrong and [the driver] didn’t want to help me anymore. So they asked me to get out because it was already occupied by some women.
This is Taha Siddiqui (@TahaSSiddiqui) using Cyrils a/c. I was on my way to airport today at 8:20am whn 10-12 armed men stopped my cab & forcibly tried to abduct me. I managed to escape. Safe and with police now. Looking for support in any way possible #StopEnforcedDisappearances
I got out of the taxi. On the side of the road, there were some ditches and a marsh area, so I jumped into that and hid there for a bit. I took off my red sweater because I was worried they’d see me…we later recovered the sweater with the police.
I found another taxi. I asked to use [the driver’s] phone. I called a journalist friend and asked him what to do. He suggested I go to the nearest police station and the taxi driver took me. I filed a report where I named the Pakistan military as a suspect. I also tweeted about it from a friend’s account because they had taken my phone, passport, suitcase, laptop, bag. I only had my wallet left on me.
GJ: How did you make the decision to leave Pakistan?
Siddiqui: The police investigation found that the [surveillance] cameras in the area weren’t working. They found one of the cars that stopped me was following me from my house but they couldn’t identify any of the faces inside the car because [the windows] were tinted and the license plate was fake.
I was invited [to a meeting] by the Interior Minister of Pakistan [Ahsan Iqbal]. He suggested that I should write a letter to the Pakistan Army Chief [Gen. Qamar Bajwa]. That’s when I realized the government was totally helpless.
People suggested that I go away for awhile because they didn’t finish the job and they might come again. Especially since I wasn’t going silent, as was suggested by some senior journalist friends who later turned their back to me during this ordeal.
It was really disappointing and depressing seeing my own journalist community not supporting me. The international media supported me, some local journalists supported me, but some people that I knew personally thought I was going the wrong way by being vocal about the attack.
Me, my wife…we sat down together and discussed. We didn’t tell my kid at the time but now I’ve gently told him how there’s a safety issue for me and we had to move.
We decided that we should get out. If we are getting out, it wasn’t going to be a three or six-month thing, because I’m fighting invisible forces in my country. I will not know if I’ve won or lost or whether they’re still after me or not.
We decided on Paris because I had been working with the French media for the last seven or eight years as a journalist for France 24. I also received the French equivalent of the Pulitzer prize [the Albert Londres prize] in 2014, so I have strong journalistic support and community here.
GJ: How has media freedom changed over time in Pakistan?
Siddiqui: Press freedom has always been under attack. We’ve gone through military dictatorships in Pakistan…through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Two things have changed in recent years. One, we as journalists don’t know what the red lines are. In my case, I don’t know what specific story, article or video triggered it. Or was it just my social media activity?
Secondly, non-state actors are now being activated against journalists so [the military] can hide behind those non-state actors and get the job done.
The military has ensured that unity among journalists is not as it used to be. They have done that through financial coercion or financial rewards…it’s further shrunk the space for journalists. The military is becoming more intolerant and its tactics to control the media are becoming more violent. I see the situation becoming worse in the coming days.
This all needs to be put in context. It’s an election year in Pakistan. The Pakistani military wants all of this room to manipulate elections for strategic gains. They don’t want the ruling party [Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz] to come into power again with a similar majority to what they enjoy right now. So to make sure they can easily manipulate the elections, they are trying to develop an environment of fear where independent reporting can’t happen.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/6BIZ7b0m-08″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Global Journalist / Project Exile” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
He had spoken about it before becoming Italy’s interior minister. Now, not even a month into the role, Matteo Salvini has threatened to remove the police protection for one of the country’s most famous journalists, Roberto Saviano. In an interview on national broadcaster Rai Tre on Thursday morning, Salvini said it was time to review spending on Saviano’s police escort as part of an evaluation of how “Italians spend their money”, thus following through on a specific pledge he made as part of the election campaign. Read in full.
21 June 2018 – Bahrain’s High Criminal Court acquitted the leader of Bahrain’s dissolved opposition party Al-Wefaq, Sheikh Ali Salman, of politically motivated charges related to espionage.
The verdict marked the end of a long, flawed trial. Sheikh Salman was acquitted alongside his two co-defendants and leading figures in the Al-Wefaq party, Sheikh Hassan Ali Juma Sultan and Ali Mahdi Ali Al-Aswad. Sheikh Salman’s co-defendants were tried in absentia.
Sheikh Salman is currently serving a four year sentence in Jau Prison in relation to another freedom of expression case.
Commenting, BIRD’s Director of Advocacy, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei: “This case should never have been initiated in the first place: Sheikh Ali Salman had been used as a pawn in Bahrain’s game of power politics. Despite his acquittal, Sheikh Salman will continue to languish in Jau Prison for exercising his right to freedom of expression. His conviction must be overturned and he must be released immediately.”
Background Information: The Qatari Case
Timeline of Events According to Bahrain’s Public Prosecution
August 2017 – Bahrain’s state television broadcasted an audio recording of a phone call between Sheikh Salman and the then Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani. This event triggered Sheikh Salman’s prosecution.
1 November 2017 – Sheikh Salman was summoned by the Public Prosecution and charged undermining the “political, economic position and national interests with the purpose of overthrowing the regime” in Bahrain. He had been accused of maintaining intelligence contacts with Qatar. More specifically, his allegations included revealing national defence secrets and accepting financial sums from a foreign country, namely Qatar.
12 November 2017 – The Public Prosecution referred the case to the High Criminal Court.
24 April 2018 – The Public Prosecution stated that the case was postponed to 21 June for sentencing.
The Qatari Mediation as Referenced by the 2011 BICI Report
Paragraph 527 of the 2011 report by Bahrain’s Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), cited opposition sources suggested that the then Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, could act as the sponsor of a proposed United States initiative. Opposition sources also indicated that the State of Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, attempted to mediate between the Bahraini Government and opposition parties in the following days, and that this initiative was accepted by the opposition but rejected by the Government.
However, the mediating role of Qatar never arose as an issue before the Qatari crisis of 2017.
Background Information: Freedom of Expression Case
Sheikh Salman is currently imprisoned in Jau Prison as a result of a separate conviction related to speeches he delivered in 2014 against parliamentary elections that his party boycotted. Some of Sheikh Salman’s charged included publicly inciting hatred, civil disobedience and for promoting change within the ruling government. He was initially sentenced to four years in June 2015, and increased to nine-year prison sentence by the appeal court and then reduced back to four years on 3 April 2017 by the highest court, In reality he was convicted in relation to peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression, following a grossly unfair trial.
Early last year, Sheikh Salman was among the 12 opposition activists and human rights defenders who were subjected to degrading treatment in Jau Prison. Since then, he has been denied the right to family visitations and access to books.
International Responses
United Nations
In February 2015, five UN experts expressed concern for the arrest and detention of Sheikh Salman, and called for his release.
In September 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) officially declared Sheikh Salman to be arbitrarily detained. The WGAD cited both freedom of expression and due process concerns, requested for his immediate release and that he receive his enforceable right to compensation.
United Kingdom (UK)
On 15 June 2018, in response to a parliamentary question on Sheikh Salman’s case, UK MENA Minister Alistair Burt merely stated that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had “raised the case at a senior level with the Government of Bahrain”. The Minister, however, has failed to publicly condemn the charges.
West London rap group 1011 today find themselves subject to an unprecedented court order that now restricts them from creating music without obtaining allowance from police.
With the group’s various visuals and freestyles on several platforms amounting to well over 10 million, defending their often violent lyrics as “online oneupmanship” — Micah Bedeau, 19, Yonas Girma, 21, Isaac Marshall, 18, Jordean Bedeau, 17, and Rhys Herbert, 17, were each imprisoned or detained for their role in a planned revenge attack on another gang last week. The judge also rejected claims that weapons found were in fact “props” for a music video. Read in full.
Risks, Rights & Reputations (RRR) is a half-day training programme developed by Index on Censorship, What Next? and Cause4 to provide arts and cultural leaders with the guidance, inspiration, tools and resources to navigate the rights and responsibilities of producing challenging or socially sensitive work.
Challenging a Risk Averse Culture
“In recent years there have been an increasing number of high-profile cases raising ethical and censorship issues around plays, exhibitions and other artworks. Censorship – and self-censorship – can stand in the way of great art. That’s why Arts Council England is committed to supporting those organisations who are taking creative risks. It’s important that organisations are aware of relevant legislation and the excellent guidance that exists. This programme is an important step in ensuring that our sector can continue to create vital, challenging, and risk-taking work.” – Sir Nick Serota, chair of Arts Council England
Navigating the rights and responsibilities of art that explores socially sensitive themes can appear daunting, risky and time-consuming. We have seen work cancelled or removed, because it was provocative or the funder controversial. But, for arts and culture to be relevant, dynamic and inclusive, we have to reinforce our capacity to respond to the most complex and provocative questions.
“This important and necessary project is a great opportunity to learn and discuss with others the increasing challenges we face in the arts sector, particularly in the context of socially engaged practise and public spaces.” – Mikey Martins, Artistic Director and Joint CEO, Freedom Festival Arts Trust
Session Content
The session addresses the challenges and opportunities related to artistic risk and freedom of expression. It aims to encourage participants to voice concerns and experiences within a supportive environment and programme of presentations, discussion and group work. By the end of day participants will:
Understand the legal and rights framework supporting artistic freedom in the UK;
Learn from analysis of recent controversies in the arts;
Gain confidence in decision-making and planning for potentially controversial work;
Manage expectations relating to the role of the police;
Discover the value of creating an ethical fundraising policy;
Benefit from access to new tools, resources and ongoing support from peers and experts beyond the session.
Participants
The session is open to artistic directors, CEOs, Senior management and trustees of arts organisations.
To date, RRR sessions have been delivered in Manchester, London and Bristol, with Arts Council national and regional offices and in partnership with the Freedom Festival Arts Trust, Hull.
“I feel more confident to speak up when talking to leaders about policy, process and practice when it comes to issues around artistic risk-taking / freedom of expression and ethical fundraising. I feel more empowered to be a useful, knowledgeable sounding board for the organisation’s I support than I did previously.” – Relationship Manager, Arts Council England[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_column_text]
UPCOMING TRAINING
We are currently accepting bookings from CEO/Artistic Directors, Chairs, individual Board Members and senior team members across the country for our upcoming RRR training sessions:[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Date[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]ACE Region[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Venue[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Host[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Trainers[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Tickets[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]21 November 2018, 12:30 – 17:30[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Midlands[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]New Arts Exchange
Nottingham[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Skinder Hundal (CEO of New Art Exchange) and Sukhy Johal, MBE (Chair of New Art Exchange)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]Julia Farrington, Index on Censorship;
Helen Jenkins, Cause4;
Diane Morgan, director Nitrobeat[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/6″][vc_column_text]From £25. Book tickets for New Arts Exchange session[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”103262″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Host: Skinder Hundal, CEO, New Art Exchange [/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
“Engagement, innovation and excellence are at the heart of New Art Exchange’s work. We are open and experimental in our programme and seek to represent a wide range of diverse cultural voices and tell sometimes difficult and unheard stories. The work that Risk, Rights and Reputations does to support cultural organisations in handling difficult subject matter is much needed.”
“This was a really interesting, thought provoking, relevant and empowering session. I really appreciated the knowledge and the care taken to pull it together. Thank you!” – Participant – CEO
The RRR team consists of specialists and facilitators in freedom of expression, artistic risk and ethical fundraising alongside Artistic Director/CEO hosts who are committed to asking the difficult questions of our time:[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103264″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Julia Farrington has specialised in artistic freedom, working at the intersection between arts, politics and social justice, since 2005. She was previously Head of Arts (at Index on Censorship (2009 – 2014) and continues her pioneering work on censorship and self-censorship as Associate Arts Producer. From 2014 – 2016, Julia was head of campaigns for Belarus Free Theatre. She now works freelance and is a member of International Arts Rights Advisors (IARA), facilitator for Arts Rights Justice Academy and Impact Producer for Doc Society, promoting documentary film as a powerful advocacy tool.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103265″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Diane Morgan is the Director of nitroBEAT and a consultant/producer. She works in collaboration with artists, leaders and organisations to support (and merge) artistic risk taking and social engagement ideas, practices and approaches. Previous roles include; Project Manager for the Cultural Leadership Programme, Decibel lead for Arts Council West Midlands and Head of Projects at Contact Theatre, Manchester.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103266″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Helen Jenkins is a consultant for Cause4, a social enterprise that supports charities, social enterprises and philanthropists to develop and raise vital funds across the arts, education and charity sectors. She has over 20 years experience of working across all fundraising disciplines in senior management and at Board level. Helen has helped organisations nationally and internationally to achieve fundraising targets and retain their ethics within challenging financial climates.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Booking Information
Fees
£45 for individuals from organisations with an annual turnover of over £500K.
£80for two individuals fromorganisationswith an annual turnover of over £500K
£25 for individuals from organisations with an annual turnover of over £250-500K
£40 for two individuals from organisations with an annual turnover £250-500K
Bursaries
Diversity and equality are essential to both the dialogue and learning around artistic risk-taking and for stronger a cultural sector. The programme is actively seeking to be fully representative of, reflect, and to meet the needs of the arts and cultural community across; gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion and class.
In order to respond to existing under-representation we are offering a limited number of bursaries to cover the training session fee for BAME and disabled CEO/Artistic Directors, Chairs, individual Board Members and Senior team members, and individuals from organisations with an annual turnover of under £250k who are currently living and working in England.
To apply for a bursaryplease write to: [email protected] with a short description of your organisation and why you would like to attend this session. Deadline: Friday 9 November.
Access
We aim to provide an inclusive environment and will work with individual participants to make sure we can meet your access needs, such as providing support workers or British Sign Language interpreters or preparing programme materials in alternative formats. Our experienced facilitators aim to be as flexible as possible in order to make the programme work for your particular needs. For access queries please write to [email protected][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Wednesday 21 November 2018, 12:30–5:30pm
Where: New Arts Exchange, 39-41 Gregory Boulevard, Nottingham NG7 6BE
Tickets: From £25 via Eventbrite
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Crime writers have less to lose than travel writers in describing the underside of holiday spots, argues Rachael Jolley in the summer 2018 issue of Index on Censorship magazine.” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_single_image image=”101057″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
When you read a novel, it takes you on a journey to a different time or place. Being an avid reader of crime fiction, my early journeys to Chicago were in the company of Sara Paretsky. I walked the streets with her VI Warshawski. We shot down North Michigan Avenue and headed out to Wrigley Field for the fifth inning. Chicago opened up to me in those books – not always gloriously.
Donna Leon showed me around the small islands of the Venetian Lagoon and Ian Rankin has taken me on numerous tours of the dark closes of Edinburgh, as well as its swankier New Town.
Crime writers have less to lose than many other authors in describing the underside of the cities. After all, their readers don’t expect a fairytale, and their escapism is a different kind from the happy-ever-afters of the perfect beach-read.
Perhaps we get more accurate portrayals of cities or countries by crime writers than in guidebooks or from travel apps.
Take Mexico and the Maldives, for instance. These are sexy holiday destinations, popular with everyone from honeymooners to scuba divers. But when thousands of holidaymakers are packing their sunscreen and swimsuits, do they know of the catastrophic numbers of journalists killed in Mexico in the past few years? Or how journalists in the Maldives are fleeing in fear of their lives?
Ad-hoc, non-scientific research, through the medium of asking friends and family, suggests not. And when that information is received, it is with some shock.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”The results are stark. Many top tourism destinations do terribly on freedom of expression.” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The other side: Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered on 16 October 2017
Mexico is ranked 147th out of 180 in the 2018 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, down from 75th in 2002. During this period, tourist numbers have continued to go up. Meanwhile, 4.6% of the government’s annual spend continues to go on tourism, significantly more than is spent in Brazil and New Zealand, for instance.
Travel and tourism delivers 6.9% of Mexico’s GDP, compared with 3.3% of Brazil’s and 5.1% of New Zealand’s. No wonder, then, that Mexico’s government is prepared to invest in tourism, and to keep that tap firmly switched on.
Informed tourists could be a powerful pressure point on governments that have been practising repression of those voices raised in criticism, or that don’t bother to pursue the criminals who threaten or kill those voicing dissent.
At this year’s Hay Festival, I was on a panel with Paul Caruana Galizia, son of the murdered journalist Daphne, as well as Malta journalist Caroline Muscat of The Shift News, and BBC Europe editor Katya Adler. Paul talked about his mother’s work, the pressures she was under and how she pursued her investigations. We discussed the wider situation in Malta, where 34 libel cases against Daphne have, since her death, rolled over to the rest of the family. During the question and answer session, some members of the audience said they had no idea about what was going on in Malta, even though they went there on holiday, and asked what they could do to help.
Paul suggested that anyone holidaying on the Mediterranean island might mention being aware of the case to local people they met. The island was dependent on tourism, and if the Maltese felt this could be affected there would be more pressure on the government to alter its attitude, and legislation, on media freedom.
He also believed the Maltese government was much more worried about international attitudes than local ones.
In places where freedom of expression is under pressure – and Malta, the Maldives and Mexico are just a few of them – tourism is often a valuable asset. So visitors who are aware of the wider situation could be advocates for change.
According to analysis of travel, tourism, financial and freedom-of-expression data carried out for Index on Censorship magazine by Mark Frary, there are indications that some tourists want to know more than whether or not a destination has a good beach before they head off on holiday.
Data on travel patterns suggest that travellers also “reward” destinations that change legislation or the environment, his analysis suggests, with Argentina picking up significant tourist numbers after it became the first South American country to make gay marriage legal.
In this issue, we have asked reporters around the world to dig into the details of popular holiday destinations to look at their records on freedoms, such as the right to protest, the right to debate and freedom of the media. The results are stark. Many top tourism destinations do terribly on freedom of expression.
In post civil war Sri Lanka, there was a period of hope after the election of Prime Minister Maithripala Sirisena in 2015. Many hoped that this beautiful island could have a future that was less violent, more equal and more open. Those hopes are now looking tarnished. As Meera Selva reports for the magazine, the country’s tourist numbers grew spectacularly in 2017. But while tourists flocked in, the great improvement was not going as well as Sri Lankans had wished.
The prime minister has reactivated the Press Council – a body with the power to imprison journalists – and civil rights activists report threats against them. In this potential Eden, the garden is not as green and pleasant as predicted.
Pretty beach paradise Baja California Sur is a popular holiday destination, particularly for Americans. But not many will know that it also has the second-highest murder rate in Mexico, behind the western state of Colima, according to government data. The dangers of being an investigative journalist there are particularly high, with some living under 24-hour protection, as Stephen Woodman reports in the magazine. Again, this is a place where many (probably most) tourists are unaware of the fuller picture of the place where they are happily enjoying the sunshine.
As someone with a heritage collection of guidebooks from publishers including Lonely Planet, Rough Guides and Footprint, it is easy for me to flick through the pages and see that those guides have made a fair effort to inform readers on questions of human rights, politics and safety in the past.
But guidebooks are carried by far fewer travellers these days. According to the Financial Times, from 2005 to 2014, 9% fewer travellers left the UK but guidebook sales fell by 45%.
With most people looking to the web for all their holiday information, are they finding themselves as well-informed as they would have been with a well-thumbed book under their arm?
An April 2018 travel section article about Malta’s capital Valletta on The Guardian’s website doesn’t mention the politics or human rights record of the island. Nor, as far as I could find, did the Lonely Planet website section on Malta. While, of course, it would be possible to find news about those issues on different parts of The Guardian site, or elsewhere on the web, it’s certainly not connecting the dots for travellers.
With the printed travel sections of newspapers under pressure from advertisers – and far smaller than they were a decade ago – there is little space to create in-depth reports, and travel articles that include gritty details as well as the delights seem few and far between.
At the upcoming Index magazine launch and summer party on 4 July, our panel of experts will discuss what responsibility authors might have to tell their readers about the good, the bad and the ugly sides of any destination. It should be an interesting evening, chaired by BBC World reporter Vicky Baker, who also writes for Guardian Travel. If you would like to join us, email [email protected] to grab a free ticket.
And since we are just back from the Hay Festival, we can also recommend our special Hay Festival podcast, where deputy editor Jemimah Steinfeld chats to three authors about taboos. Catch it on Soundcloud.com/indexmagazine.
Finally, don’t miss our regular quarterly magazine podcast, also on Soundcloud, including an interview with the founder of the Rough Guides, Mark Ellingham. Come by and visit us.
The latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine, Trouble in Paradise, Escape from Reality: what holidaymakers don’t know about their destinations is out now. Buy a subscription. Buy a print copy from bookshops including BFI, Serpentine and MagCulture (London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool), Home (Manchester), and Red Lion Books (Colchester), or via Amazon. Digital versions available via exacteditions.com or iTunes.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Trouble in paradise” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2F2018%2F06%2Ftrouble-in-paradise%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The summer 2018 issue of Index on Censorship magazine takes a special look at how holidaymakers’ images of palm-fringed beaches and crystal clear waters contrast with the reality of freedoms under threat
With: Ian Rankin, Victoria Hislop, Maria Ressa [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”100776″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/2018/06/trouble-in-paradise/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
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:
With holidaymakers packing up for their summer trips, a new issue of 
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
