02 Aug 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Counter Terrorism, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin has expressed serious concerns about the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill that is currently being considered by parliament.
In her submission Professor Ni Aoláin states that the bill risks criminalising a broad range of legitimate behaviour, including reporting by journalists. She highlights the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression and finds that parts of the bill fail to meet the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.
Professor Ni Aoláin questions the need for new terrorism offences that would be introduced by the bill and recommends that the bill should be amended. She also recommends that the UK should launch an independent review of the Prevent strategy.
Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy, said: “Index welcomes Professor Ní Aoláin’s recommendations on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill. We share her concerns about the bill’s impact on journalism, academic research and freedom of expression and question whether the bill is fit for purpose.”
Index submitted a paper to parliament to ask it to reconsider the bill.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1533291161920-eefc9b7d-f927-5″ taxonomies=”27743″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
01 Aug 18 | China, Magazine, News and features, Student Reading Lists
China: student declaration, the September 1989 issue of Index on Censorship magazine.
Subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine here
Index has covered censorship in China since 1973. While the government’s approach has evolved in today’s digital era, in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, key themes surrounding the suppression of political dissent and free expression remain as pressing as ever. Explore them in this reading list featuring prominent Chinese academics, activists and writers.
Tiananmen Remembered
May 2009 vol. 38 no. 2
Wang Dan, a leading figure in the 1989 protests, talks to the writer Xinran about the fallout and the legacy of Tiananmen. Wang Dan was released from prison in 1998 and exiled to the United States. He completed his PhD at Harvard University. He is chairman of the Chinese Constitutional Reform Association and on the advisory board of Wikileaks. Xinran worked as a journalist and radio presenter in China. She now lives in London. Her books include The Good Women of China (Vintage), Sky Burial (Vintage) and China Witness (Chatto & Windus).
Read the full article here.
Tiananmen Square
June 1989 vol. 18 no. 8
Student leaders Liu Xiaobo, Zhou Duo, Hou Dejian and Gao Xin declared a hunger strike in Tiananmen Square just before the massacre on the night of 3-4 June 1989. This translation of excerpts of the declaration was first published in The Independent, 10 June 1989.
Read the full article here.
From Coming back to life: written for the ‘Tiananmen mother’
December 2010 vol. 39 no. 4
This poem was written by Chinese poet Shi Tao who has faced censorship, government threats and imprisonment for his work. It was translated by English scholar Frances Wood.
Read the full article here.
A date (not) to forget: The author on why her book about Tiananmen would be well-nigh impossible to research today
April 2018 vol. 47 no. 1
China has passed a law to make telling the wrong sort of history punishable. Louisa Lim, author of a book on the Tiananmen Square massacre, says she wouldn’t be able to research her book today.
Read the full article here.
Chinese whispers
September 1999 vol. 28 no. 5
In 1999, the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre passed quietly enough but as British journalist John Gittings writes, the desire for change and for democracy in China is as strong as ever.
Read the full article here.
DuoDuo’s view from death
September 1989 vol. 18 no. 8
One of China’s leading young poets Li Shizheng, known as DuoDuo, was in Tiananmen Square on the day of the massacre. He flew to Britain the day afterwards, where he was interviewed by Gregory Lee for Index.
Read the full article here.
Subscribe to the print edition Index on Censorship magazine here for £35 or take out a digital subscription via Exact Editions (just £18 for the year, with a free trial).
01 Aug 18 | Index in the Press
Index CEO Jodie Ginsberg tells The Telegraph: “We’re appalled that Google — which has repeatedly stressed its commitment to freedom of expression – should effectively collude with one of the world’s most oppressive regimes in this way. We will be urging Google to drop Dragonfly and resist attempts by governments worldwide to restrict freedom of speech rather than providing those governments with tools to further undermine democracy.” Read the full article.
31 Jul 18 | Artistic Freedom, News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_gallery interval=”3″ images=”101853,101849″ img_size=”large”][vc_column_text]Dressed in t-shirts and sneakers, a group of teens files into a large, white-walled room reminiscent of a school gymnasium. A stage looms over a motley audience of chairs, its walls plastered with handmade collages of redacted newspaper headlines. It could be any summer programme, but when professional opera singer Abigail Kelly begins leading the students in a song on political dissent and dictatorship, it’s clear that they’ve come together to create something novel, provocative and, above all, youth-led.
This is the English National Opera’s (ENO) Baylis Summer Youth Project, which invites students ages 13-18 from around London to create and perform a new piece of music theatre with the support of professional directors, composers and performers. This summer’s programme challenges participants to think critically about issues of censorship, both modern and historical.
The programme responds to Effigies of Wickedness, a collaboration between ENO and the Gate Theatre. Effigies presented songs censored and banned by the Nazis in the 1930s. The youth project features these songs which were, as assistant composer Kelly rehearsed in one scene, “degenerate music […] especially music written by Jewish composers.”
Previous projects have included Other Voices and Speak Some Truth. Like this year’s project, they responded to ENO productions, helping students break down complex topics related to expression and connect them to their own experiences and the present day. Brainstormed by participants and revised by professionals, the script reflects their discussions on censorship. Participants then split into performance and set design groups to put the performance together in late July.
Three performance group members outlined the creative process:
“First we got quotes on censorship and drew a mind map of our ideas” said Alanis.
“We talked a lot about censorship and self-censorship” said Hugo, adding that he hadn’t really thought about self-censorship and how it affects his own interpersonal interactions before the program.
Another participant, Elizabeth, noted “We were also given a poem explaining the fine line of free speech.”
Kelly mentioned that when students came together in mid-July, programme leaders stimulated their thinking about the intersection of free expression and the arts with poetry from persecuted artists like Palestinian poet Darine Tatour. Index CEO Jodie Ginsberg also spoke to the youth company on the programme’s opening day to stimulate discussion on free expression in the arts.
Diversity and teamwork are at the centre of the programme. Choreography is crowd-sourced from the performance group members and all the costumes and stage decorations were built by the set design team. Across the stage, newspaper collages bear hand-painted slogans like “Answer bad ideas with ideas, not censorship” and “Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence.” Kelly said “We try to give the participants a sense of ownership over what they’ve created.”
Assistant producer Poppy Harrison sees the program as “An opportunity to discuss things in a different way, […] to show every side of the argument. We’ve been careful not to push [the participants] in any direction.”
ENO Baylis’ outreach began during the school year in communities with limited access to the arts. Students in ENO programmes like Opera Squad were especially encouraged to apply to the summer session. Culminating in a performance in front of friends and family, the programme is an extension of ENO’s mission to inspire students to engage with the opera and pressing issues like censorship in the arts.
With participants like Hugo observing that the programme helped him realise that “Creators are people still censored even in our democratic society,” it would seem that ENO is succeeding.
Index on Censorship works extensively on issues of artistic freedom. Find more information here.[/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:1533049608412-e4e98e79-eb23-5″ taxonomies=”1856, 25039, 13149, 1167″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
31 Jul 18 | Europe and Central Asia, Germany, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/inBCgA2hPm8″][vc_column_text]Video footage shot by Thomas Kraus shows police violently detaining journalist Marvin Oppong.
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
When journalist Marvin Oppong began photographing the scene of an accident involving a police car and a taxi, he was just doing his job. But before long Oppong ended up being violently detained by police and stripped of his camera’s memory card.
“What happened is that I stumbled across something which made the police look bad”, Oppong told Mapping Media Freedom. “That’s why I was treated the way I was. Their objective was to get me, and my evidence, out of the way – with violence if need be. They didn’t want anyone there taking pictures. I had images of the wrecked police vehicle which could be relevant for a future criminal investigation. Taking my evidence might be relevant under criminal law.”
The facts of the incident are clear: Two vehicles collided. A passenger in one of the two cars, a taxi, was seriously injured. The driver of the police car appeared to be at fault. Emergency services and police officers responded. A local journalist turned up to the scene to document the smash-up – the bread and butter work of local news reporters globally.
When a second journalist, freelancer Thomas Kraus, began filming Oppong’s arrest, a police officer tried to stop filming.
Oppong later tweeted that the public prosecutor later said that the police officer was under criminal investigation.
Mapping Media Freedom has verified a number of incidents involving members of the public services interfering with journalists filming events.
In May 2018 MMF reported on the case of firefighters abusing and threatening journalists at the scene of a road traffic accident in the Mecklenburg lake district. The driver was returning from an event run by a volunteer fire service where he was acting as a child minder, and initial reports suggested the responding firefighters believed him to be a member of the volunteer fire service. He was almost one and a half times over the legal drink-drive limit. Firefighters attempted to make journalists leave even though police had given them permission to be at scene. Later that night the journalists received abusive and threatening phone calls and, as a result, a police car was stationed outside their home.
In October 2017 Bild reporter Karl Keim filmed the arrest of a suspect wanted for knife crimes in Munich on his mobile phone. Police ordered him to delete the footage, threatening to confiscate his phone if he did not comply. When he did not immediately obey the police order, he was told “we can just resolve this with physical force if you like?”. In panic Keim unlocked his phone and the officers deleted the footage themselves.
In March 2016 in Munich TAZ journalist Laura Meschede used her phone to film what looked like a particularly brutal arrest. The officer ordered her to stop filming, threatened confiscation of her phone and physically manhandled her. The next day, Meschede found out – from a police press release – that the arrest she had attempted to film was of a man trying to film a third arrest and, according to police, “got physical” when asked to stop.
“This kind of thing is happening more often”, said Sven Adam, a lawyer who represents journalists on the receiving end of police aggression, in an interview for online magazine ZAPP. Lawyer Marco Noli in an interview for national weekly TAZ mentioned that the police increasingly use video themselves for evidence – “but that is their material, which they can edit. There are numerous examples, he told TAZ, of police editing out their own misconduct. “I think this is the reason why police are so vehemently attacking people who film them”, Noli said. “They fear that smartphones could end the era in which they alone get to decide what video material ends up in court.”
In fact, video evidence gathered by police was instrumental in the 27 convictions for offences related to rioting at the G20 summit in Hamburg. Even after critical journalists had their accreditation revoked or not recognised and were beaten and pepper sprayed by police, journalists responded to calls by Hamburg police to share their footage to help identify and prosecute suspects.
Journalists supplied several hundred gigabytes of data, which would correspond to 15 hours or more of video footage. The major German media houses sent all their broadcasted material, and one of their production companies sent all their unused material also. Private broadcaster RTL said they have a duty to assist the authorities when it appears a crime has been committed, also by surrendering unused material, unless it would compromise sources. Public broadcasters NDR and ZDF by contrast say they refuse in all circumstances, as did national daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. They pointed out that people won’t talk to journalists if journalists can’t protect them, and worse, the danger that people will become openly hostile to journalists, in particular at large events, if they perceive journalists as working hand-in-hand with the authorities rather than as neutral reporters.
In an interview for NDR Hamburg police chief Ralf Martin Meyer stressed the voluntary nature of the co-operation but hinted that things might not necessarily always be so friendly. He said there were circumstances in which police are justified in confiscating material. The police have a duty, he said, to clarify what happened. If they don’t, “they can make themselves criminally liable for aiding a perpetrator of an act after the fact by preventing their prosecution.”
Former Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schanrrenberger, of the neo-liberal FDP, criticised the police in an interview for public broadcaster NDR: “To require unused material is in my eyes not justified. First and foremost editorial confidentiality applies, first and foremost the freedom of the press and free speech must be protected. This is anchored in law. One cannot require of the media to be a kind of support policeman.”
The ubiquity of smartphones has come into conflict with a keen appreciation of the importance of the right to privacy in Germany, which has robust data protection laws. Germans are more suspicious about social media and don’t use it to share photographs and videos of themselves and each other as much as in other countries. CCTV is much more controversial and tightly controlled in Germany. The German press code tightly limits the circumstances under which journalists may publish the identity or the image of a suspect, defendant or victim.
It is not surprising that this keen sense of privacy in the population as a whole is reflected in police and public services culture. Remarkably, by global law enforcement standards, most German police uniforms do not display an officer’s name or even badge number. Their introduction has been consistently and vehemently opposed by the main police union, GdP, who say they are not necessary, place all officers under a “general suspicion”, and pose a risk to the sanctity of individual officers’ private and home life. Amnesty International has criticised this lack of police accountability in its submission for the UN Universal Periodic Review, noting that even where individual officers can be identified, a further obstacle is that none of Germany’s police forces have a truly independent body to examine complaints against police.
Legally anyone may film police and public services as long as it does not obstruct their work and respects the privacy rights of anyone involved in the incident. Journalists additionally enjoy the constitutionally protected right to practice their profession and freedom of the press.
Tensions are usually resolved by production of a press ID card, which should reassure officers that the journalists are professionals: They won’t obstruct, they won’t trample all over evidence, they won’t take and publish distasteful images of helpless individuals suffering. A spokesperson for the GdP told ZAPP that there are “absolutely no problems with professional journalists on the ground”; police receive extensive training on press law “and the behaviour towards journalists is generally characterised by great tolerance.”
The most respected press ID card in Germany is jointly issued by the six large press associations. There is no special training or exams required to get one. However, they are only available to people who work as professional journalists full time or as their main job Accordingly, they are not available to journalists who work part time and who are not paid.
The police service claims that Oppong was arrested because he never identified himself as a journalist, and that they released him as soon as they established he was.
Oppong disputes the police version of events. “I told them I was a journalist many times but they weren’t interested. They didn’t want to see my press ID card. They didn’t even want to see my ordinary citizens’ ID card until I was in the cell. So I think they didn’t arrest me to ascertain my identity or to check whether I was entitled to take photographs because all that could already have been done at the scene.”
Oppong vehemently rebuts the police story, regurgitated unquestioningly in much of the local media, that his removal from the scene was necessary because he was obstructing the work of responders and trampling all over evidence. “The scene wasn’t cordoned off at any point in time. I always maintained a respectful distance. The video showing the sequence when I was taken into custody also shows people standing in the area in which the police had not allowed me to be in before. It shows that six police officers were participating in taking me into custody. If securing the area had really been so imperative, some of those six might have taken on this task.”
Oppong is facing criminal charges for resisting arrest, assault on police and violation of privacy rights by taking pictures. As well as defending these charges, Oppong is pursuing criminal charges against the officers involved including misconduct in public office and false imprisonment.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGODMlMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1533044545483-3470eedd-d751-9″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
31 Jul 18 | Index in the Press
Toronto Star cites Index research: Indeed, a report published in the Index on Censorship earlier this year found more than 20 political leaders worldwide, from both authoritarian and democratic regimes, had used the term “fake news” to discredit journalism they did not like.” Read the full article.
30 Jul 18 | Malaysia, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1532952362622-3cdbf71d-d6a0-4″ include=”101642,101641,101640,101639,101638,101637″][vc_column_text]
For Malaysian cartoonist Zunar, three years of constitutional challenges pale in comparison to the 43 years imprisonment that were on the line. But after a legal battle active since 3 April 2015, Zunar’s nine sedition charges were dropped on Monday 30 July 2018. With three days in court still to follow, the victory is one of several the artist is seeking as an advocate for free expression and the repeal of the Sedition Act.
Implemented during British rule and strictly enforced by the regime of former PM Najib Razak, the Sedition Act spared no government critic whether artist, activist or MP. Under newly elected PM Mahathir Mohamad, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) announced that it would review all ongoing sedition cases starting 13 July.
In the first of his four court dates this week, Zunar was acquitted along with MP Sivarasa Rasiah of the People’s Justice Party (PKR) and civil rights lawyer N. Surendran. All three individuals were charged for denouncing the Razak regime’s conviction of opposition leader and PKR member Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy.
Surendran faced charges on 19 August 2014 after writing a seditious press release entitled “Court of Appeal’s Fitnah 2 written judgement is flawed, defensive and insupportable.” Zunar was charged not for his political cartooning but for tweets that insulted the judiciary after Anwar’s conviction. Both were charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act for “publish[ing], […] distribut[ing] or reproduc[ing] any seditious publication” while Sivarasa was charged under Section 4(1)(b) for “utter[ing] any seditious words” in a speech at the March 2015 “Kita Lawan” (“We Fight”) rally in protest of Anwar’s imprisonment.
After their hearings on Monday in Kuala Lumpur, prosecutors reported that the AGC would not pursue their respective cases any further. Zunar’s victory was widely celebrated by his global fanbase. Human Rights Watch legal advisor Linda Lakhdhir tweeted “Excellent news that the Malaysian govt is dropping sedition charges against @zunarkartunis and @nsurendrann. Now it should drop all remaining sedition charges and repeal the law.”
Indeed, the Pakatan Harapan coalition the government is now under promised to repeal the Sedition Act in its 2018 election manifesto. As Zunar told Index earlier this month, “If they really want to abolish the Sedition Act together with other laws related to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, they at least need to suspend it first before they continue.”
His upcoming court dates, 31 July-2 August, concern a suit the cartoonist filed after he was arrested and his artwork and 1300 of his books were confiscated in a police raid during an exhibition in October 2016. Although there have not been any similar cases since Mahathir came to power, Zunar hopes to use his cartooning and advocacy to serve as a watchdog and hold the government to their commitments on free expression.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1532952291084-c9001237-0b1b-4″ taxonomies=”4218″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
30 Jul 18 | Index in the Press
On the eve of the elections, Click talks to Umber Khairi and Samira Shackle who recently produced an Index on Censorship report on abuses through social network platforms. Listen to the full episode.
30 Jul 18 | Europe and Central Asia, Lithuania, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Dainius Radzevicius, chairman of Lithuania’s Journalists Union. Credit: alkas.lt)
In the 28 years since Lithuania gained independence, the country’s media has generally enjoyed high levels of freedom. The country’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and those protections have been respected by successive governments. However, while initiatives by the country’s current ruling coalition haven’t seen the press attacked on the same levels as neighbouring Poland, for example, the government’s resolve is clear: the media must be reined in.
Index spoke with the chairman of the country’s Journalists Union, Dainius Radzevicius about the situation media workers now find themselves in.
Linas Jegelevicius: How would you rate the level of press freedom in Lithuania right now?
Dainius Radzevicius: The ruling Farmers and Greens Party (LVZS), in coalition with the Social Democratic Party of Lithuania, has risen to power as part of the wave of the anti-establishment parties sweeping the West. This coalition has declared the need for more regulation of the media. For example, it has attempted to push through legislation that, if enacted, would have required a 50/50 balance for negative and positive content in the media. It was proposed by the MP Dovile Sakaliene, but she withdrew it after a public outcry. Another MP from LVZS, Robertas Sarknickas, has sought tougher legislative action against the so-called “romanticising” of suicides (he believes that media shouldn’t specify how a person died). Initiatives by the ruling party aimed at regulating media are undoubtedly the biggest concern for journalists. It is likely that we will see more initiatives of this kind in Lithuania.
The second threat to media freedom in Lithuania stems from the determination of authorities, especially those at the municipal level, to control the information that reaches local readers, viewers and listeners.
I see journalists being increasingly barred from accessing certain events, such as those held in state institutions. Recently, journalists in the Gargzdai municipality were denied the right to attend a meeting with the municipality heads and the prime minister, Saulius Skvernelis. It is an abnormal situation when the mayors’ advisors are given exclusive access to information. The mayor’s advisors video-streamed the meeting and posted the news on Facebook. This is an increasing trend in Lithuania, where journalists are being bypassed in the preparing and disseminating of information.
Thirdly, I see the trend of journalists being too complacent with the position of the publishers and the structures behind them and tend to avoid criticising certain political and business entities and so on. In doing so, they feel safe job-wise. This self-censorship is especially prevalent among older, as well as young, inexperienced journalists.
Jegelevicius: Do you foresee more threats to media freedom in Lithuania in the future? Specifically, are there any controversial legislative initiatives on the agenda in the upcoming autumn session of parliament?
Radzevicius: Those initiatives tend to pop up out of the blue as a rule. From what I can see, after reviewing the autumn session draft agenda, there is a draft law on state support for the media, the intention of which is rather obscure so far. I am concerned that state authorities will be entrusted with the distribution of funds. Being aware of the processes, I just cannot rule that out. If this happens, it will deal another big blow to media freedom in Lithuania. I especially worry that freelancers and independent media content producers would be affected by it. The model of state support that existed until now was not ideal, but it was pretty fair, including to freelancers.
Jegelevicius: There have been several cases of closure of Russian TV news channels by Lithuanian authorities. What is your take on the issue? Does the removal of NTV Mir and RTR Planeta off the air for six months count as media violations?
Radzevicius: I want to emphasise that the measures were taken after multiple violations occurred. No state puts up with warmongering and instigating of enmity and disseminating of propaganda. The repetitive violations by the Russian TV channels were reviewed by different Lithuanian media supervision bodies, as well as by the European Commission, before the decision was made to shut them down. Note that suspension of the broadcasting is for a limited period (6 months), after which the channels can resume the license. A big portion of their content had very little to do with journalism – the local viewers were awash with propaganda ordered in Moscow. Many problems of the kind would be solved if all the states, including Russia, would pass laws and ratify international conventions that would allow journalists to work independently and bar states from using journalists as propaganda tools.
Jegelevicius: How does Lithuania compare with other European countries in terms of press freedom?
Radzevicius: We indeed have very few violations but I believe some go unreported. With 28 years as an independent state, the majority of the ruling coalitions have understood the importance of media freedom to democracy and to the checking of legislative, judicial and governmental powers in the country. The fact that the parties tend to change after serving their term in Lithuania has also been an important factor for media freedom.
Jegelevicius: Lithuania holds municipal council, presidential and European Parliament elections next year. There is a worry that unfriendly states such as Russia will meddle with them, including attempts to influence the media. Financially unstable media outlets are especially prone to such acts. Will the authorities step in and regulate the process during the sensitive election period?
Radzevicius: I have no doubt that our state authorities, including the State Security Department, are very well aware of what to expect. Indeed, we live in a small country with a pretty small media market, all of which makes it easier to monitor what is going on. From the point of view of journalism, transparency is the best remedy to guarantee that the elections are violation-proof.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGOTAlMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1532934432548-8a5b26e4-acf4-5″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Jul 18 | Denmark, Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Known across Europe for its journalistic quality and as an exporter of hit political dramas, Danish state broadcaster DR will this autumn be forced to make unprecedented layoffs in what some are calling an act of “revenge” by the government.
In a package of media reforms agreed by Denmark’s governing right-wing coalition, DR is to have its funding cut by 20% and will be forced to let several hundred staff go as a result.
A significant driver of the cuts is the right-wing populist Danish People’s Party (DF), a political movement founded in the mid-1990s that has grown to become a supporting partner of the conservative coalition government. DF politicians have been known to discredit public media outlets and encouraged voters towards alternative websites pushing strongly nationalistic content, with DR often caricatured as a hotbed of left wingers and politically correct liberals.
One longtime editor from DR’s current affairs team, who wished to remain anonymous, said he believes the cuts are a clear political power play: “This thing about DR being left wing goes 50 years back to the days when DR was a monopoly in Denmark when it was accused of being biased, but the funny thing is that all the DR stars that went into politics over many years all have gone to right-wing parties. In the past, there have been examples of DR leaning a little to the left, but nothing on the scale of what they’re being accused off; it simply makes no sense.”
Thoughts have now turned to where exactly the cuts will bite, combined with anger among DR journalists at what they see as a personal attack.
“This will cost around 600-700 jobs and people will get the sack in October,” says the editor. “Are they pissed off? Of course they are, because they feel it’s unjust. The budget of DR is £450 million a year and employs about 3,000 people. Yes, there’s room for cuts, they just have to be based on facts and necessities and not the whims of vengeful politicians.”
Traditionally DR has used large-scale audience capture to divert viewers and listeners towards its more educational and politically analytical content. Journalists fear that by being forced to hand over more popular content to commercial and entertainment-only channels, it will end up shedding audience share, which will then be used as a political justification for further cuts in public spending. The government has also removed the public broadcaster’s first refusal on international sporting events which bring in large numbers of viewers, much to the delight of commercial broadcasters.
DR’s politically cautious general director, Maria Rørbye Rønn, has said that the cutbacks will have serious consequences for the organisation’s users, viewers and listeners. Unions have been more forthright, with DR’s most senior union representative, Henrik Friis Vilmar, telling colleagues in an open letter: “[T]he ambitions of the Danish media are to my mind especially important at a time where Danish-produced critical news is more important than ever in order to stem the tide of fake news and troll factories.” Friis Vilmar went on to warn that the ability of DR to critically observe Danish society was at serious risk.
Morten Østergaard, a member of parliament for the opposition Danish Social Liberal Party, has described the cuts as a “vendetta against DR”, while the Social Democrats have also refused to back the government deal, claiming that cuts will mean less Danish content and less coverage of life in Denmark, which would also negatively impact the Danish democratic system.
The government has responded that it is saving Danes money by effectively giving them a small tax break, though the difference this will make to people’s personal finances is negligible, with people saving at most around 160 euros a year. As part of the package of reforms the government is abolishing the current system of media licences and instead financing DR through the tax system.
DR was founded in 1925 and has a reputation for being one of Europe’s most developed and innovative public broadcasters. In 2007 it moved to a new high-tech media campus on the south side of Copenhagen and currently runs six different TV channels and eight radio channels, including a comprehensive local radio network.
The opposition parties in the Danish parliament have said that they will restore DR’s funding if they win the next election. This might be welcome news for public service journalists, but with the axe hanging over so many of its staff, the next round of elections will see a leaner public broadcaster painfully aware that its detractors in power are watching its every move.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Incidents reported to Mapping Media Freedom since 24 May 2014.” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:14|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGNzklMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1532621766097-fa067966-c17c-8″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Jul 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Counter Terrorism, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship rejects proposals for a new UK treason law.
A report by influential think tank Policy Exchange proposed creating a new offence of treason that would be committed if anyone “does any act” intended to aid “an attack on the UK by any state or organisation.” Index believes this definition is so broad as to be unworkable and presents a grave threat to freedom of expression.
The report was co-authored by Tom Tugendhat MP, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, and has been endorsed by former Home Secretary Amber Rudd.
“The UK already has a raft of terror laws and successive reviewers of these laws have argued there is no need for further legislation in this area,” said Index chief executive Jodie Ginsberg. “Vaguely defined laws such as the one proposed can easily be used by more extreme governments to punish political enemies rather than simply tackle those engaged in violence.”
“We should resist these repeated attempts to try to tackle terrorists using broad brush laws that ultimately chip away at all our hard won freedoms and liberties.”
Index on Censorship has also called for changes to the proposed Counter Terror and Border Security Bill currently going through parliament.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1532607187002-45641f4b-0394-6″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Jul 18 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”101752″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”101751″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”101753″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”69903″ img_size=”700×400″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]Join Sonos and Index on Censorship for an evening of thought provoking discussions around issues relating to queer music and censorship in the UK and around the globe.
Panellists include:
• MNEK – English singer, songwriter and record producer
• Sado Opera – LGBTQ+ Russian party band
• Princess Julia – DJ & music writer
Index’s Julia Farrington will moderate the panel.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”In partnership with” font_container=”tag:p|text_align:left”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”101757″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/home”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Wednesday, 1st August 2018 19:00pm – 20:30pm
Where: Sonos Store London, 21-23 Earlham St, London, WC2H 9LL (directions)
Tickets: Free. Please RSVP by Monday 30th July @5pm: [email protected]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
