10 Dec 18 | Digital Freedom, Fellowship, Fellowship 2017, News and features, Sri Lanka, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”104234″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]“Internet shutdowns are increasingly used by governments to control the flow of information, particularly around elections or political unrest,” Alp Toker, executive director and founder of the NetBlocks group, told Index on Censorship.
NetBlocks, which grew out of the 2017 Freedom of Expression Digital Activism Award-winning Turkey Blocks, is a nonprofit organisation created in 2016 to harness technology to map internet freedom. The civil society group aims to protect and support digital rights, cyber-security and internet governance.
“The goal is to go beyond research into prototyping, implementation and deployment of completely new mechanisms that might be able in future to protect and extend our fundamental rights,” Toker said.
NetBlocks has partnered with the Internet Society to create a new tool, Cost of Shutdown Tool (COST), that will cover social media and key content platforms, as well as full internet blackouts.
“What’s the cost of censorship? How much do internet shutdowns cost ordinary citizens? These are the questions we set out to answer at NetBlocks with COST, because traditional advocacy around freedom of expression doesn’t always make the impact it should, but financial figures make authorities listen,” Toker said.
The COST tool has been in a beta mode throughout 2018. NetBlocks estimated a loss of £23.7 million from the March 2018 Sri Lankan internet shutdowns that took place in response to violent riots.
COST’s main goal is to spread awareness about the true costs and effects of online shutdowns. The NetBlocks teams hopes that this will prompt citizens to put pressure on the authoritarian governments who are most responsible for online censorship.
Gillian Trudeau from Index on Censorship spoke to Alp Toker about NetBlock’s new tool, COST, and what to expect from it.
Index: What is the Cost of Shutdown Tool (COST) and what does it do?
Toker: What’s the cost of censorship? How much do internet shutdowns cost ordinary citizens? These are the questions we set out to answer at NetBlocks with COST, because traditional advocacy around freedom of expression doesn’t always make the impact it should, but financial figures make authorities listen.
The Cost of Shutdown Tool (COST) is a data-driven online tool to quickly and easily estimate the economic cost of internet disruptions. Built around economic methodologies devised by the Brookings Institution and CIPESA, the Cost of Shutdown Tool (COST) estimates economic cost of internet shutdowns, mobile data blackouts and social media restrictions using regional indicators from the World Bank, ITU, Eurostat and U.S. Census. The tool will cover shutdowns affecting social media, key content platforms and full Internet blackouts using key indicators relating to the global digital economy. COST is officially launching Monday 10 December, 2018.
Index: What do you hope to achieve with the project?
Toker: We hope to enable anyone – including journalists, researchers, advocates, policy makers, businesses — to understand how much internet disruptions can cost economies, as well as support advocacy and policy work to end online mass-censorship.
Index: How did your relationship with the Internet Society start and what do they bring to the project?
Toker: The Internet Society (ISOC) is a global organisation with over one hundred chapters around the world dedicated to ensuring that the internet stays free and open. We connected at the Internet Engineering Task Force where we are working to strengthen internet protocols for human rights, and things immediately clicked. The partnership has been very strong because it is built around both impact around human rights and technological development — areas of expertise for both organisations. With the Internet Society’s global access, we’ve been able to explore new ways to identify and push back against internet disruptions that harm human rights around the world.
Index: Why should we be concerned about internet shutdowns?
Toker: Internet shutdowns are increasingly used by governments to control the flow of information, particularly around elections or political unrest. Internet shutdowns create chaos through all facets life, from accessing medical services to getting in contact with family members.
Through our work in the #KeepItOn campaign, we’re continuing to monitor these shutdowns around the world. Open access to internet is a key part of a functioning democracy, and is protected by international law and conventions.
Index: What cost estimates do you have for internet shutdowns in 2018?
Toker: In it’s beta mode, the tool has already been used to bolster advocacy efforts around the world. Our first experience using the tool in advocacy came when Sri Lanka shut down parts of the internet during protests, leading to an estimated loss of $30,000,000 USD. Because we were able to calculate the number instantly, it became the basis of a national campaign launched by Sri Lanka’s Social Media User’s Union. In Iraq, multi-day outages cost the economy an estimated $40,000,000 USD. Again, this figure was picked up widely by local and international media and caught the attention of everyone from street vendors to the oil industry. Another shutdown in Ethiopia had a more modest impact of 3,500,000 birr, but that impact targeted a small region with a developing economy and its impact was felt hard. Working with the #KeepItOn coalition, we wrote to the Ethiopian government to highlight the concern with their policy.
Index: What trends in internet shutdowns can we expect COST to uncover in 2019?
Toker: There is a growing tendency toward mass-censorship online, particularly in developing countries. We’ve been seeing more localised disruptions, and COST is now able to estimate the impact of sub-national shutdowns — a powerful approach that highlights the economic impact to a local community.
We have also seen more precisely timed shutdowns, intended to evade detection and reporting. For these reasons, COST works best when there is hard technical evidence of an internet disruption. Hence, it works great in tandem with real-time monitoring data from the NetBlocks internet observatory, which uses new techniques to accurately track such incidents.
In addition, research shows little evidence that cutting off communications provides relief in these situations, but it has been shown again and again that shutdowns do impact emergency first-response, healthcare and the provision of critical service. This is in addition to their severe impact on the fundamental rights of free expression, free assembly and free association.
Index: What are the worst and best countries for internet freedom and why?
Toker: Pakistan and India face systematic disruptions at massive scale, and the problem is also endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. There are also frequent disruptions in the Middle East, and a new trend emerging of shutdowns in Central America.
Index: When was the NetBlocks group created?
Toker: The idea for NetBlocks came about in 2015 and was recognisable in its current form by 2016. We entered the spotlight in 2017 after the first two modules of the internet observatory was launched. Meanwhile, The Index on Censorship Award helped us focus at a critical moment in time with a backdrop of contested elections, overbearing corporations, and the breakdown of online trust. In a time of rapid change the fellowship gave us a way to channel creative energy into a force for good.
Index: Why was the NetBlocks group created?
Toker: NetBlocks exists to meet the overwhelming need and demand for rights-based technology in support of free expression and access to knowledge. The goal is to go beyond research into prototyping, implementation and deployment of completely new mechanisms that might be able in future to protect and extend our fundamental rights. Internet-scale measurement, data-driven policy and advocacy, rights-based internet protocol design, machine learning to uncover violations of fundamental rights: these are some of the new frontiers. I’m sure there will be more.
There are competent civil society technology programmes out there today, but why not shake things up and put the tech at the forefront of the mission? Journalism, writing, the creative arts now exist largely in digital spaces, more vulnerable than at any time in our history. We need to not only understand those spaces, but to master them if we’re to stand a chance defending free thought for the next generation.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1544461258021-a4fe0eae-9690-2″ taxonomies=”9034″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
10 Dec 18 | Artistic Freedom, Cuba, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The artist Tania Bruguera who was detained last week with fellow artists in Cuba for protesting against Decree 349, an artistic censorship law, has written an open letter explaining why she will not attend Kochi biennial at a time that is crucial for freedom of expression in Cuba and beyond.
Bruguera who was due to attend Kochi states in the letter:
“At this moment I do not feel comfortable traveling to participate in an international art event when the future of the arts and artists in Cuba is at risk… As an artist I feel my duty today is not to exhibit my work at an international exhibition and further my personal artistic career but to expose the vulnerability of Cuban artists today.”
Bruguera feels it is important to highlight the situation in Cuba and also to see it as part of a global phenomenon of repression of artists and freedom of expression. Recent cases such as Shahidul Alam, the photographer imprisoned by the government of Bangladesh (who Bruguera campaigned for by hosting two protest shows at Tate Modern in October), the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi killed in the Saudi embassy in Turkey, and photographer Lu Guang who has gone missing in China, demonstrate that governments feel emboldened to openly attack high profile figures, moving beyond internal state repression which used to happen behind closed doors.
On Wednesday 5 December supporters of Bruguera held a protest exhibition at Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall, where participants spoke on a microphone about Decree 349 and the abuse of artists around the world. Alistair Hudson, director of the Whitworth and Manchester Art Gallery spoke at the event via live phone in. Tate director Maria Balshaw, also spoke out on the BBC news broadcast of the Turner Prize whilst Tate Modern director Frances Morris made a statement on Tate twitter. A speech by HRH Prince Constantijn on the occasion of the 2018 Prince Claus Awards at the Royal Palace, Amsterdam on 6 December 2018 also spoke about the situation with reference to Tania Bruguera, Shahidul Alam and Lu Guang. Many other cultural institutions around the world have also made public statements, whilst others are showing signs that they will follow.
The hope is that art institutions and events around the world, such as Kochi biennial, follow suit and show open solidarity to defend the artists’ space.
The full wording of Bruguera’s letter is as follows:
OPEN LETTER BY TANIA BRUGUERA TO THE DIRECTOR OF KOCHI BIENNALE ON DECREE 349
At this moment I do not feel comfortable traveling to participate in an international art event when the future of the arts and artists in Cuba is at risk. The Cuban government with Decree 349 is legalizing censorship, saying that art must be created to suit their ethic and cultural values (which are not actually defined). The government is creating a `cultural police´ in the figure of the inspectors, turning what was until now, subjective and debatable into crime.
Cuban artists have united for the first time in many decades to be heard, each with their own points of view. They had meetings with bureaucrats from the Ministry of Culture who promised them that they would meet again to give them answers. Instead, the Minister and other bureaucrats appeared on TV and made comments such as “[those who oppose Decree 349] want the dissolution of the institution” and “the alternative they are proposing is the commercialisation of art.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. If this were true, the artists would not have written to the institutions and sought dialogue with them.
But, a public opinion campaign by the government against the artists, with the intention to divide between “good ones” and “bad ones”, has started. This is even more concerning when under this decree the law restricts but provides no guarantee of whether an artist will or will not be criminalized or not at any time.. Moreover, the decree states that all `artistic services´ must be authorized by the Ministry of Culture and its correspondent institutions, making independent art impossible.
The last time a decree of this sort was enacted was the no. 226 from November 29 of 1997, which is evidence of the long life that such a decree could have and its long term impact on our culture.
As an artist I feel my duty today is not to exhibit my work at an international exhibition and further my personal artistic career but to be with my fellow Cuban artists and to expose the vulnerability of Cuban artists today.
We are all waiting for the regulations and norms the Ministry of Culture will put forward to implement Decree 349 in the hope that they include the suggestions and demands so many artists shared with them. I would like to add that the instructor from the Ministry of Interior who is in charge of my case menaced me yesterday, saying that if I didn’t leave Cuba and if I did `something´, I would not be able to leave in the future.
Injustice exists because previous injustices were not challenged.
Ironically, I’m sending you this text on December 10th the International Day of Human Rights.
Un abrazo,
Tania Bruguera[/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:1544431942749-6dbcba3e-bd36-2″ taxonomies=”15469, 7874″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Dec 18 | Index in the Press
Nearly 500 people have been investigated by Derbyshire police after sending offensive online messages so far this year. Read the full article
05 Dec 18 | Artistic Freedom, Awards, Cuba, Fellowship, Fellowship 2019, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Update: All arrested artists have now been released, although they remain under police surveillance. Cuba’s vice minister of culture Fernando Rojas has declared to the Associated Press that changes will be made to Decree 349 but has not opened dialogue with the artists involved in the campaign against the decree.
Index on Censorship joined others at the Tate Modern on 5 December in a show of solidarity with those artists arrested in Cuba for peacefully protesting Decree 349, a law that will severely limit artistic freedom in the country. Decree 349 will see all artists — including collectives, musicians and performers — prohibited from operating in public places without prior approval from the Ministry of Culture.
In all, 13 artists were arrested over 48 hours. Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara and Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, members of the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award-winning Museum of Dissidence, were arrested in Havana on 3 December. They are being held at Vivac prison on the outskirts of Havana. The Cuban performance artist Tania Bruguera, who was in residency at the Tate Modern in October 2018, was arrested separately, released and re-arrested. Of all those arrested, only Otero Alcantara, Nuñez Leyva and Bruguera remain in custody.
Index on Censorship’s Perla Hinojosa speaking at the Tate Modern.
Speaking at the Tate Modern, Index on Censorship’s fellowships and advocacy officer Perla Hinojosa, who has had the pleasure of working with Otero Alcantara and Nuñez Leyva, said: “We call on the Cuban government to let them know that we are watching them, we’re holding them accountable, and they must release artists who are in prison at this time and that they must drop Decree 349. Freedom of expression should not be criminalised. Art should not be criminalised. In the words of Luis Manuel, who emailed me on Sunday just before he went to prison: ‘349 is the image of censorship and repression of Cuban art and culture, and an example of the exercise of state control over its citizens’.”
Other speakers included Achim Borchardt-Hume, director of exhibitions at Tate, Jota Castro, a Dublin-based Franco-Peruvian artist, Sofia Karim, a Lonon-based architect and niece of the jailed Bangladeshi photojournalist Shahidul Alam, Alistair Hudson, director of Manchester Art Gallery and The Whitworth, and Colette Bailey, Artistic director and chief executive of Metal, the Southend-on-Sea-based arts charity.
Some read from a joint statement: “We are here in London, able to speak freely without fear. We must not take that for granted.”
It continued: “Following the recent detention of Bangladeshi photographer Shahidul Alam along with the recent murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, there us a global acceleration of censorship and repression of artists, journalists and academics. During these intrinsically linked turbulent times, we must join together to defend our right to debate, communicate and support one another.”
Castro read in Spanish from an open declaration for all artists campaigning against the Decree 349. It stated: “Art as a utilitarian artefact not only contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Cuba is an active member of the United Nations Organisation), but also the basic principles of the United Nations for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO).”
It continued: “Freedom of creation, a basic human expression, is becoming a “problematic” issue for many governments in the world. A degradation of fundamental rights is evident not only in the unfair detention of internationally recognised creatives, but mainly in attacking the fundamental rights of every single creator. Their strategy, based on the construction of a legal framework, constrains basic fundamental human rights that are inalienable such as freedom of speech. This problem occurs today on a global scale and should concern us all.”
Cuban artists Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara and Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, members of the Index-award winning Museum of Dissidence
Mohamed Sameh, from the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award-winning Egypt Commission on Rights and Freedoms, offered these words of solidarity: “We are shocked to know of Yanelys and Luis Manuels’s detention. Is this the best Cuba can do to these wonderful artists? What happened to Cuba that once stood together with Nelson Mandela? We call on and ask the Cuban authorities to release Yanelys and Luis Manuel immediately. The Cuban authorities shall be held responsible of any harm that may happen to them during this shameful detention.”[/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:1544112913087-f4e25fac-3439-10″ taxonomies=”23772″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Dec 18 | Artistic Freedom, Artistic Freedom Statements, Cuba, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Cuban artist Tania Bruguera
Update: All arrested artists have now been released, although they remain under police surveillance. Cuba’s vice minister of culture Fernando Rojas has told the Associated Press that changes will be made to Decree 349 but has not opened dialogue with the artists involved in the campaign against the decree.
The following is an open declaration for all artists campaigning against the Decree 349, a law that will criminalise independent artists and place severe restrictions on cultural activity not authorised by the state. It will be read in solidarity at a gathering at Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern today from 1-2pm for those arrested this week for protesting the law. Those arrested include Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara and Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, members of the Index-award winning Museum of Dissidence, and Cuban performance artist Tania Bruguera. In all, 13 artists were arrested over 48 hours. Some have commenced a hunger and thirst strike.
The Cuban government intends to implement a regulation – commonly known as Decree 349 – which will subdue artistic and creative activity on the island, bringing it under the state’s strict tutelage. The content of the decree comprises two classical premises of any totalitarian state: the need for the artist to obtain prior authorisation for the exercise of his/her work and censorship of the creative process.
The execution of these two premises is to be overseen by an intricate structure of civil servants, subject to their discretion, thus reinforcing a “bureaucracy” which inhabits the language of revolutionary self-criticism.
The title of the decree reflects the particular vision that the Cuban government has about art because it refers to “the provision of artistic services”. If the purpose of art is to provide a service, then it essentially provides only to the regime and to no one else.
Art as a utilitarian artefact not only contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Cuba is an active member of the United Nations Organisation), but also the basic principles of the United Nations for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO).
The decree does not include anything new to the current practice of the Cuban government in the management of social engineering of its population, however, it offers a legal cover to a reactionary, ancient and regressive practice even in the field of those who consider themselves progressive. Nobody can deny the extraordinary achievement of Cuba in terms of providing basic necessities to its citizens, particularly provisions of health and education; this in spite of a setback of over fifty years, resulting from a political and economic embargo from the world’s most powerful nation. Under these conditions, creatives in Cuba were not only free to practice art but were actively promoted by the State and became a symbol of a global solidarity.
Ultimately, the freedom that is inherent to creative acts is something that a government whose only objective it is to remain in power, will be unable to tolerate. In adopting the act and implementing the decree, they will find themselves in a creative desert that will bore even themselves. The nomenclature living in their material comfort will seek to see Hollywood movies, instead of listening to their own propaganda.
Freedom of creation, a basic human expression, is becoming a “problematic” issue for many governments in the world. A degradation of fundamental rights is evident not only in the unfair detention of internationally recognised creatives, but mainly in attacking the fundamental rights of every single creator. Their strategy, based on the construction of a legal framework, constrains basic fundamental human rights that are inalienable such as freedom of speech. This problem occurs today on a global scale and should concern us all.[/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:1544094682847-9507be49-72bf-3″ taxonomies=”23772″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Dec 18 | Artistic Freedom, Artists in Exile, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”104099″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]“If you want to make films in Burundi, you either self-censor and you remain in the country or if you don’t, you have to flee the country,” Eddy Munyaneza, a Burundian documentary filmmaker, told Index on Censorship.
Munyaneza became fascinated in the process of filmmaking at a young age, despite the lack of cinematic resources in Burundi.
He now is the man behind the camera and has released three documentaries since 2010, two of which have drawn the ire of the Burundian government and forced Munyaneza into exile.
His first documentary — Histoire d’une haine manquée — was released in 2010 and has received awards from international and African festivals. The film is based on his personal experience of the Burundian genocide of 1993, which took place after the assassination of the country’s first democratically elected Hutu president Ndadye Melchoir. It focuses on the compassionate actions he witnessed when his Hutu neighbours saved him and his Tutsi sisters from the mass killings that swept the country. The film launched Munyaneza’s career as a filmmaker.
Munyaneza was honoured by Burundi’s president Pierre Nkurunziza for his first film and his work was praised by government officials. But the accolades faded when he turned his camera toward Nkurunziza for his second film in 2016.
The film, Le Troisieme Vide, focused on the two-year political crisis and president’s mandate that followed Nkurunziza’s campaign for an unconstitutional third term in April 2015. During the following two years, between 500 and 2,000 people were tortured and killed, and 400,000 were exiled.
The filming of his second documentary was disrupted when Munyaneza started receiving death threats from the government’s secret service. He was forced to seek asylum in Belgium in 2016 for fear of his life. Through perseverance and passion, he quietly returned to Burundi in July 2016 and April 2017 to finish his short film.
Exile hasn’t affected Munyaneza’s work: in 2018 he released his third film, Lendemains incertains. It tells the stories of Burundians who have stayed or left the country during the 2015 political tension. He secretely returned to Burundi to capture additional footage for his new film, which premiered in Brussels at the Palace Cinema and several festivals.
“I lead a double life, my helplessness away from my loved ones, and the success of the film on the other,” he said. He continues to work in exile, but also works toward returning to Burundi to see his wife and kids who currently reside in a refugee camp in Rwanda, and to create film, photography and audio programs for aspiring Burundian filmmakers.
Gillian Trudeau from Index on Censorship spoke with Munyaneza about his award-winning documentaries and time in exile.
Index: In a country that doesn’t have an abundance of film or cinema resources, how did you become so passionate about filmmaking?
Munyaneza: I was born in a little village where there was no access to electricity or television. At the age of 7, I could go into town for Sunday worship. After the first service, I would go to the cinema in the centre of the town of Gitega. We watched American movies about the Vietnam war and karate films, as well as other action movies which are attractive to young people. After the film my friends and I would have debates about the reality and whether they had been filmed by satellites. I was always against that idea and told them that behind everything there was someone who was making the film, and I was curious to know how they did it. That’s why since that time I’ve been interested in the cinema. Unfortunately, in Burundi, there is no film school. After I finished school in 2002, I began to learn by doing. I was given the opportunity to work with a company called MENYA MEDIA which was getting into audiovisual production and I got training in lots of different things, cinema, writing, and I began to make promotional films. The more I worked, the more I learned.
Index: How would you characterise artistic freedom in Burundi today, and is that any different to when you were growing up?
Munyaneza: To be honest, Burundian cinema really got going with the arrival of digital in the 2000s. Before 2000 there was a feature film called Gito L’Ingrat which was shot in 1992 and directed by Lionce Ngabo and produced by Jacques Sando. After that, there were some productions by National Television and other documentary projects for TV made in-house by National Television. I won’t say that the artistic freedom in those days was so different from today. The evidence is that since those years, I can say after independence, there have not been Burundian filmmakers who have made films about Burundi (either fictional or factual). There were not really any Burundian films made by independent filmmakers between 1960 and 1990. The man who dared to make a film about the 1993 crisis, Kiza by Joseph Bitamba, was forced to go into exile, just as I have been forced to go into exile for my film about the events of 2015. So if you want to make films in Burundi, you either self-censor and you remain in the country or if you don’t, you have to flee the country.
Index: You began receiving threats after you made your second film, Le troisieme vide, in 2016. The film focused on the political crisis that followed the re-election of president Nkurunziza. Why do you think the film received such a reaction?
Munyaneza: Troisieme Vide is a short film which was my final project at the end of my masters in cinema at Saint Louis in Senegal. I knew that just making a film about the 2015 crisis would spark debate. Talking about the events which led to the 2015 crisis, caused by a president who ran for a third term, which he is not allowed to do by the constitution, I was sure that when this film came out I would have problems with the government. But I am not going to be silent like people who are older than me have done, who did not document what went on in Burundi from the 1960s, and have in effect just made the lie bigger. I want to escape this Burundian fate, to at least leave something for the generations to come.
Index: How did you come to the decision to leave Burundi and what did that feel like?
Munyaneza: Burundi is a beautiful country with a beautiful climate. My whole history is there – my family, my friends. It is too difficult to leave your history behind. The road into exile is something you are obliged to do. It’s not a decision, it’s a question of life or death.
Index: How is life in Belgium, being away from your wife and children?
Munyaneza: It is very difficult for me to continue to live far from my family ties. I miss my children. I remain in this state of powerlessness, unable to do anything for them, to educate them or speak to them. It is difficult to sleep without knowing under what roof they are sleeping.
Index: How has your time in exile affected your work?
Munyaneza: On the work front, there is the film which is making its way. It has been chosen for lots of festivals and awards. I have just got the prize (trophy) for best documentary at the African Movie Academy Award 2018. I was invited but I couldn’t go. I lead a double life, my helplessness away from my loved ones, and the success of the film on the other. I have been invited to several festivals to present my film, but I don’t have the right to leave the country because of my refugee status. I am under international protection here in Belgium.
Index: You have returned to your home country on several occasions to film footage for your films. What dangers are your putting yourself in by doing this? And what drives you to take these risks?
Munyaneza: I risked going back to Burundi in July 2016 and in April 2017 to finish my film. To be honest, I didn’t know how the film was going to end up and sometimes I believed that by negotiating with the politicians it could take end up differently. When you are outside (the country) you get lots of information both from pro-government people and from the opposition. The artist that I am I wanted to go and see for myself and film the situation as it was. Perhaps it was a little crazy on my part but I felt an obligation to do it.
Index: Your most recent film, Uncertain Endings, looks at the violence the country has faced since 2015. In it, you show the repression of peaceful protesters. Why are demonstrators treated in such a way and what does this say about the future of the country?
Munyaneza: The selection of Pierre Nkurunziza as the candidate for the Cndd-FDD after the party conference on 25 April provoked a wave of demonstrations in the country. The opposition and numerous civil society bodies judged that a third term for President Nkurinziza would be unconstitutional and against the Arusha accords which paved the way for the end of the long Burundian civil war (1993-2006). These young people are fighting to make sure these accords, which got the country out of a crisis and have stood for years, are followed. Unfortunately, because of this repression, we are back to where we started. In fact, we are returning to the cyclical crises which has been going on in Burundi since the 1960s. But what I learnt from the young people was that the Burundian problem was not based on ethnic divides as we were always told. There were both Hutu and Tutsi there, both taking part in defending the constitution and the Arusha accords. It is the politicians who are manipulating us.
Index: Do you hold out any hope of improvements in Burundi? Do you hope one day to be able to return to your home country?
Munyaneza: After the rain, the sun will reappear. Today it’s a little difficult, but I am sure that politicians will find a way of getting out of this crisis so that we can build this little country. I am sure that one day I’ll go back and make films about my society. I don’t just have to tell stories about the crisis. Burundi is so rich culturally, there are a lot of stories to tell in pictures.[/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnGPlAd1to8&t=24s”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1543844506394-837bd669-b5fd-5″ taxonomies=”29951, 15469″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Dec 18 | Awards, Fellowship 2019, News and features, Press Releases
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”104120″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is proud to announce that award-winning investigative journalist Maria Ressa and actor Khalid Abdalla will join a panel of judges to decide the 2019 Freedom of Expression Awards Fellows.
The Freedom of Expression Awards, now in their 19th year, honour champions of free expression and those battling censorship around the world in the field of arts, campaigning, digital activism and journalism. Many have faced prosecution and punishment for their work.
Ressa has been a journalist in Asia for more than 30 years. She was CNN’s bureau chief in Manila then Jakarta, and became CNN’s lead investigative reporter focusing on terrorism in Southeast Asia. Now CEO and executive editor of Rappler.com, Ressa – winner of this year’s Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award presented by the Committee to Protect Journalists – is frequently targeted by Philippines’ increasingly autocratic president Rodrigo Duterte. Ressa and her company were formally indicted on multiple counts of tax evasion in late November. She is currently on bail pending her next appearance in court on 7 December.
Abdalla is a British-Egyptian actor, producer and filmmaker. He has starred in award-winning films, including United 93, The Kite Runner and In the Last Days of the City, which he also produced. Abdalla is a founding member of three collaborative initiatives in Cairo – Cimatheque, Zero Production and Mosireen.
Abdalla said: “The abyss we are facing all over the world requires acts of courage and intellect capable of changing the terms of how we think and respond to the challenges ahead. We have to celebrate those who inspire us and lead by example, not just because they have managed to break barriers in their own contexts, but because some part of what they do holds a key for us all.”
The judging panel will also include British-Somali feminist, writer and social activist Nimco Ali, who is co-founder and director of Daughters of Eve, a survivor-led organisation which has helped to transform the approach to ending female genital mutilation (FGM). Nimco’s book RUDE: There Is No Such Thing as Over-Sharing is due out in early 2019; and British computer scientist Dr. Kate Devlin, who is a writer and senior lecturer in Social and Cultural Artificial Intelligence at King’s College London. Her book, “Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots”, explores intimacy and ethics in the digital age.
Announcing the judging panel, Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: “Our award winners and nominees often face huge personal and professional risks work defending the right for everyone to speak freely. The awards draw attention to the repression that they face every day and give us a chance to celebrate and support these inspiring journalists, activists, and artists.
“We’re excited to announce this year’s remarkable panel of judges, who are leaders and experts in their fields. The Freedom of Expression Awards Fellowship recognise global free speech heroes and provide assistance so that their important work can continue.”
Previous winners of the Freedom of Expression Awards include Nobel Peace Prize winner Pakistani education campaigner Malala Yousafzai, Honduran investigative journalist Wendy Funes and Yemeni artist Murad Subay. Hundreds of public nominations are made for the awards each year. Many of those nominated are regularly targeted by authorities or by criminal and extremist groups for their work. Some face regular death threats, others criminal prosecution.
Previous judges include Serpentine Galleries CEO Yana Peel, digital campaigner and entrepreneur Martha Lane Fox, Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka, Harry Potter actor Noma Dumezweni, novelist Elif Shafak, award-winning journalist and former editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker Tina Brown and human rights lawyer and shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer.
The Freedom of Expression Awards Fellowship ceremony 2019 will be held on 4 April in London.
More information about the judges follows:
For Index on Censorship
Sean Gallagher, [email protected]
About the Freedom of Expression Awards Fellowship
Winners of the 2019 Freedom of Expression Awards Fellowship receive 12 months of capacity building, coaching and strategic support. Through the fellowships, Index seeks to maximise the impact and sustainability of voices at the forefront of pushing back censorship worldwide. More information
About Index on Censorship
Index on Censorship is a London-based non-profit organisation that publishes work by censored writers and artists and campaigns against censorship worldwide. Since its founding in 1972, Index on Censorship has published some of the greatest names in literature in its award-winning quarterly magazine, including Samuel Beckett, Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Arthur Miller and Kurt Vonnegut. It also has published some of the world’s best campaigning writers from Vaclav Havel to Elif Shafak.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][staff name=”Khalid Abdalla, Actor and Filmmaker” profile_image=”104118″]Khalid Abdalla is an actor, producer and filmmaker who also works in cultural production and alternative media. He has starred in award winning films, including Paul Greengrass’s United 93 and Green Zone, Marc Forster’s The Kite Runner, Tala Hadid’s The Narrow Frame of Midnight, and Tamer El Said’s In the Last Days of the City – which Khalid also produced. In documentary film he has producing credits on Hanan Abdalla’s In the Shadow of a Man and the upcoming film by Hanan Abdalla & Cressida Trew, The Vote and has appeared in Jehane Noujaim’s Oscar nominated The Square. Khalid is a founding member of three collaborative initiatives in Cairo – Cimatheque, Zero Production and Mosireen. Brought up in the UK to Egyptian parents, Cairo and London are his two cities. [/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][staff name=”Nimco Ali, Writer and Social Activist” profile_image=”104121″]Nimco Ali is a British Somali feminist, writer and social activist. She is co-founder and director of Daughters of Eve, a survivor-led organisation which has helped to transform the approach to ending female genital mutilation (FGM), and is the lead advisor to the UK’s APPG to End FGM. She is working to ban FGM in Somaliland, is a former ambassador for #MAKERSUK and was awarded Red Magazine’s Woman of the Year award 2014 and placed No. 6 in Woman’s Hour Power List. Her book ‘RUDE’ There Is No Such Thing as Over-Sharing comes out in early 2019.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][staff name=”Kate Devlin, Writer and Academic” profile_image=”104081″]Kate Devlin is a writer and an academic in the department of Digital Humanities in King’s College London where she works on artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction. Her book, Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots, explores intimacy and ethics in the digital age. [/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][staff name=”Maria Ressa, CEO and Executive Editor” profile_image=”104085″]Maria Ressa is CEO and executive editor of social news network Rappler in the Philippines. She has been a journalist in Asia for more than 30 years and was CNN’s bureau chief in Manila then Jakarta, and became CNN’s lead investigative reporter focusing on terrorism in Southeast Asia. She is an author of two books on terrorism, co-founder of production company Probe and later managed ABS-CBN News and Current affairs. Maria has won numerous awards for her work, including the prestigious Golden Pen of Freedom Awards in 2018.[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content” equal_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1515150485442{background-color: #cb3000 !important;}” el_class=”text_white”][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_custom_heading text=”Support the Index Fellowship” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fnewsite02may%2Fsupport-the-freedom-of-expression-awards%2F|||”][vc_column_text]
By donating to the Freedom of Expression Awards you help us support individuals and groups at the forefront of tackling censorship.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1543427572500{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/newsite02may/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-fellows-1000.jpg?id=100251) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][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) to receive our weekly newsletter, monthly events email and periodic updates about our projects and campaigns. See a sample of what you can expect here.
Index on Censorship will not share, sell or transfer your personal information with third parties. You may unsubscribe at any time. To learn more about how we process your personal information, read our privacy policy.
You will receive an email asking you to confirm your subscription to the weekly newsletter, monthly events roundup and periodic updates about our projects and campaigns.[/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]
04 Dec 18 | Index in the Press
Bruguera was one of a number of artists protesting the controversial Decree 349 which critics say will censor and limit artistic freedom. Read the full article.
04 Dec 18 | Artistic Freedom Statements, Awards, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Cuba, Fellowship, Fellowship 2018, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Yanelys Nuñez Leyva and Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara. The Museum of Dissidence
2018 Freedom of Expression Awards at Metal, Chalkwell Park, Essex.
Update: All arrested artists have now been released, although they remain under police surveillance. Cuba’s vice minister of culture Fernando Rojas has told the Associated Press that changes will be made to Decree 349 but has not opened dialogue with the artists involved in the campaign against the decree.
Index on Censorship calls for the immediate release of Cuban artists protesting against a decree they say could stifle creativity and increase censorship.
Members of the 2018 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award-winning Museum of Dissidence, Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara and Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, are among those arrested and whose whereabouts are currently unknown. Performance artists Tania Bruguera was also detained.
Index fears for the artists’ well-being following reports of threats of violence by state security. There is a heavy police presence at the homes of artists who said they would be participating in the peaceful protest in front of the Ministry of Culture.
Otero Alcàntara and Nuñez Levya couldn’t make it to the Index awards ceremony in April but were in the UK to finally receive their award on 18 October at Metal arts centre in Chalkwell Hall, Southend. The Museum of Dissidence, a public art project celebrating dissent in Cuba, has constantly faced opposition, criticism and imprisonment for its art and activism.
“Luis Manuel and Yanelys have made clear that they want dialogue with the government to repeal this decree and include independent artists in the decisions that affect them. Criminalising art should never be an option. We call for the artists’ immediate release,” said Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg.[/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:1544094896838-be240ea9-89bc-10″ taxonomies=”23772″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
04 Dec 18 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Nine international freedom of expression, press freedom, and professional journalists’ organisations condemn the lack of justice for the assassination of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia a full year after three arrests were made in connection with the case. Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb that detonated near her home in Bidnija, Malta on 16 October 2017.
On 4 December 2017, 10 people were arrested in connection with Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder, of whom three men were charged with murder, the criminal use of explosives, criminal conspiracy, and involvement in organised crime. However, a full year later, the three men have still not yet been brought to trial, and the investigation has failed to yield any further tangible results.
We again emphasise the need for full justice for Caruana Galizia’s murder; every person involved in the planning and carrying out of this heinous attack must be identified and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
To that end, and in light of the clear deficiencies of the ongoing criminal investigation, we reiterate our support for the Caruana Galizia family’s call for a public inquiry into whether Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination could have been prevented, and to determine whether any changes to law, policies, or practices are required in order to protect the lives of journalists in Malta. We again urge Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to establish without delay an inquiry in line with the Third Opinion published on 30 November by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors and Doughty Street Chambers.
We further express our profound disappointment that the Maltese authorities have not addressed any of the serious concerns identified by the joint freedom of expression mission to the country undertaken by six of our organisations from 15 to 17 October. On the contrary, the free expression climate in Malta has continued to deteriorate since our mission.
We particularly note the Maltese authorities’ continuous actions not only to destroy on a daily basis the protest memorial honouring Caruana Galizia, but also to construct increasingly elaborate barriers around the protest memorial to prevent the public from exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest.
We continue to follow with concern the dozens of ongoing civil defamation lawsuits that continue against Caruana Galizia posthumously – including cases filed by the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, and the Minister of Tourism – as well as a case brought by the Prime Minister that continues against Caruana Galizia’s son Matthew. We are also closely following the unprecedented attempt by Speaker of Parliament Anglu Farrugia, at the request of ruling party MP Glenn Bedingfield, to censor a report about a parliamentary debate by The Shift News.
Finally, we note the failure by the Maltese government to report accurately on the free expression climate in the country in its report to the UN Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review of Malta on 14 November. The state report neglected to include Caruana Galizia’s assassination, or other areas of widespread violations that have taken place in Malta, despite the fact that the country experienced the world’s sharpest decline in Reporters Without Borders’ 2018 World Press Freedom Index, falling 18 places to 65th out of 180 countries.
In light of these worrying developments, we again urge the Maltese authorities to:
- Redouble efforts to identify and prosecute all those involved in the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, including the masterminds behind the attack;
- Immediately establish a public inquiry into whether Caruana Galizia’s assassination could have been prevented and whether lessons can be learned for the future;
- Cease all forms of attack against Caruana Galizia posthumously and against those who continue to fight for justice for her murder, as well as independent media such as The Shift News that continue to pursue public interest investigative reporting;
- Accept and implement the recommendations made during the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of Malta; and
- Take concrete steps as a matter of urgent priority to improve the wider freedom of expression climate in the country.
Signed:
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
The Committee to Protect Journalists
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists
International Press Institute
IFEX
Index on Censorship
PEN America
PEN International
Press contact: Rebecca Vincent, UK Bureau Director for Reporters Without Borders at +44 (0)20 7324 8903 or [email protected].[/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:1543919409223-f401f7cb-ee84-6″ taxonomies=”18782″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
04 Dec 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements
On 12 September, the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online. The proposal is very problematic from a fundamental rights and free expression perspective. Index on Censorship joins others in highlighting these concerns.
Dear Ministers,
The undersigned organisations are dedicated to protecting fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of expression and information, both online and offline. We urge you to significantly amend the ‘Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online‘, proposed by the European Commission on 12 September 2018, to bring it in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and to propose evidence-based measures that can better achieve the Regulation’s stated goals.
Preventing and countering terrorism, regardless of the ideological, political or religious motivations of the perpetrators, is a legitimate and important goal for European governments that seek to protect liberty and security for individuals and societies. EU Member States and institutions are taking numerous initiatives that aim to counter the threat of violence, including addressing content online that is perceived as promoting terrorism.
One such initiative is the Directive on Combating Terrorism, adopted in March 2017. This Directive has provisions which cover similar content to the Regulation currently being debated – notably in requiring Member States to ensure the “prompt removal of online content constituting a public provocation to commit a terrorist offence” – but its effectiveness has not yet been analysed due to a lack of implementation in all Member States. Without evidence to demonstrate that the existing laws and measures, and in particular the aforementioned Directive, are insufficient to address the harm of terrorist content online, the proposed Regulation cannot be deemed justified and necessary. EU institutions must always ensure that all legislation is evidence-based, appropriately balanced, and consistent with human rights requirements. The undersigned do not believe the proposed Regulation meets these criteria.
Several aspects of the proposed Regulation would significantly endanger freedom of expression and information in Europe:
- Vague and broad definitions: The Regulation uses vague and broad definitions to describe ‘terrorist content’ which are not in line with the Directive on Combating Terrorism. This increases the risk of arbitrary removal of online content shared or published by human rights defenders, civil society organisations, journalists or individuals based on, among others, their perceived political affiliation, activism, religious practice or national origin. In addition, judges and prosecutors in Member States will be left to define the substance and boundaries of the scope of the Regulation. This would lead to uncertainty for users, hosting service providers, and law enforcement, and the Regulation would fail to meet its objectives.
- ‘Proactive measures’: The Regulation imposes ‘duties of care’ and a requirement to take ‘proactive measures’ on hosting service providers to prevent the re-upload of content. These requirements for ‘proactive measures’ can only be met using automated means, which have the potential to threaten the right to free expression as they would lack safeguards to prevent abuse or provide redress where content is removed in error. The Regulation lacks the proper transparency, accountability and redress mechanisms to mitigate this threat. The obligation applies to all hosting services providers, regardless of their size, reach, purpose, or revenue models, and does not allow flexibility for collaborative platforms.
- Instant removals: The Regulation empowers undefined ‘competent authorities’ to order the removal of particular pieces of content within one hour, with no authorisation or oversight by courts. Removal requests must be honoured within this short time period regardless of any legitimate objections platforms or their users may have to removal of the content specified, and the damage to free expression and access to information may already be irreversible by the time any future appeal process is complete.
- Terms of service over rule of law: The Regulation allows these same competent authorities to notify hosting service providers of potential terrorist content that companies must check against their terms of service and hence not against the law. This will likely lead to the removal of legal content as company terms of service often restrict expression that may be distasteful or unpopular, but not unlawful. It will also undermine law enforcement agencies for whom terrorist posts can be useful sources in investigations.
The European Commission has not presented sufficient evidence to support the necessity of the proposed measures. The Impact Assessment accompanying the European Commission’s proposal states that only 6% of respondents to a recent public consultation have encountered terrorist content online. In Austria, which publishes data on unlawful content reports to its national hotline, approximately 75% of content reported as unlawful were in fact legal. It is thus likely that the actual number of respondents who have encountered terrorist content is much lower than the reported 6%. In fact, 75% percent of the respondents to the public consultation considered the internet to be safe.
The Regulation, as proposed, would introduce serious risks of arbitrariness and have grave consequences for freedom of expression and information, as well as for civil society organisations, investigative journalism and academic research, among other fields.
We urge Members of the European Parliament and Member State representatives to significantly amend the Regulation. In this regard, they should prioritize providing evidence for why this instrument is justified and necessary considering the recent adoption of the Directive on Combatting Terrorism. If evidence proves the Regulation justified and necessary, it is imperative for the EU institutions to bring it in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, namely the right to privacy in Art.7, to data protection in Art.8 and to freedom of expression and information in Art.11.
Signatories
Access Now
Apti
Bits of Freedom
Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
Chaos Computer Club
CILD
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Dataskydd.net
Digitalcourage
Digital Rights Ireland
European Digital Rights (EDRi)
Electronic Frontier Finland
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
epicenter.works
Fitug
Free Knowledge Advocacy Group
Frënn vun der Ënn
Homo Digitalis
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Index on Censorship
Initiative für Netzfreiheit
IT-Political Association of Denmark
Panoptykon
Reporters Without Borders
The Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties)
Web Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation
XNet
Signing in an individual capacity. Affiliation is for identification purposes only.
Daphne Keller
Director of Intermediary Liability
Center for Internet and Society
Stanford Law School
Joan Barata, PhD
Intermediary Liability Fellow
Center for Internet and Society
Stanford Law School
03 Dec 18 | Artistic Freedom, Awards, Cuba, Fellowship, Fellowship 2018, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Yanelys Nuñez Leyva and Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara
Update: All arrested artists have now been released, although they remain under police surveillance. Cuba’s vice minister of culture Fernando Rojas has told the Associated Press that changes will be made to Decree 349 but has not opened dialogue with the artists involved in the campaign against the decree.
Cuban artists Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara and Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, members of the Index-award winning Museum of Dissidence, were arrested in Havana on 3 December for protesting against Decree 349, a law that will criminalise independent artists and places severe restrictions on cultural activity not authorised by the state. Their location was unknown until 4 December when it became clear they were taken to Vivac prison on the outskirts of Havana.
The performance artist Tania Bruguera was arrested separately, released and then rearrested. In all, 13 artists were arrested over 48 hours. Some have commenced a hunger and thirst strike.
There are reports of artists, including theatre actors, being unable to attend the protest due to a police presence at their homes. There are also reports of artists being threatened by state security with being thrown off buildings and with having their phones confiscated and broken.
Before his arrest, Otero Alcantara told Index: “349 is the image of censorship and repression of Cuban art and culture, and an example of the exercise of state control over its citizens.”
“Index on Censorship condemns the arrests of Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara, Yanelys Nuñez Leyva and Tania Bruguera, and demands their immediate and unconditional release,” says Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship. “The arrests of those engaging in peaceful protest against a law that limits artistic freedom is completely unacceptable.”
Decree 349 will come into force on 7 December. Otero Alcantara visited London on 26 October where he protested in Trafalgar Square in flamboyant carnival attire as his character Miss Bienal against the draconian law. He told Index of his surprise at being allowed to demonstrate in a public area without interference from the authorities: “People stop and stare, you know, but police don’t arrest me. It is strange because this wouldn’t happen in Cuba.”
Otero Alcantara has been arrested on numerous occasions in Cuba, including in July for protesting Decree 349 outside the Ministry of Culture, and in August, along with Nuñez Leyva, for organising an anti-censorship concert.[/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:1551353027371-75b2196d-f44a-10″ taxonomies=”23772″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
