“I struggle with Kanye West being given a platform by anyone”

Every day there seems to be a new public controversy, with clear free speech elements, which dominates our public discourse for a day or two. Each one typically leads to a discussion within Index, our professional staff debating not just whether we should make an intervention and what that could look like. But sometimes, more importantly, the team has the intellectual debate about where the lines on the right to freedom of speech fall. What are the rights and responsibilities we all have towards the societies we live in?  Where is the line on incitement, on hate speech, on civility?

From Kanye West, to the revoking of TV Rain’s broadcast licence in Latvia, to the death of Jiang Zemin. All had freedom of expression angles, all were complicated, no part of the reality behind the news was clear cut and nuance in the debate was seemingly lost in the maelstrom of the debate.

Personally I struggle with Kanye West being given a platform by anyone; his words incite violence against a minority and there can be little debate that his public statements amount to hate speech. I have spent the majority of my life campaigning against racism and anti-Jewish hate and Mr West, aka Ye, is clearly a racist who espouses views that I will always challenge. And I struggle to be convinced that he has the right to celebrate and justify his racism on every platform available.

However, there are those within the Index family, including some of our founders, who consider (or considered) free speech to be an absolute right – where no limitations on speech could be tolerated. That freedom of expression enables us to shine a light on extremist views and therefore can act as an antidote to them. Intellectually I can understand that approach, I even have huge sympathy with it. Pushing extremist views to the fringes and making them illicit, gives them a mystery and an appeal that they otherwise might not attract. But there has to be a balance, at least in my opinion.

Which brings me back to the right to speak versus the right to be heard. I have the absolute right to write this blog but you have the absolute right not to read it. I have the right to speak, to draw, to argue, but you have the right to ignore me. Because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives me the right to have my own views and to be able to share them without fear or favour – but it doesn’t force anyone to have to listen to them. So the onus is on all of us to find the balance between respecting our freedom of expression and protecting and enhancing the public spaces of the societies we live in.

Artsiom Mitsuk

LETTERS FROM LUKASHENKA'S PRISONERS Artsiom Mitsuk Detained on 29 September 2020 "Rather than one heroic deed, it’s all the same hard work every day … It’s about doing your thing every single day." READER'S NOTE: Artsiom Mitsuk was part of a Telegram group chat which...

Index Index

What is the Index Index? The Index Index is a pilot project that uses innovative machine learning techniques to map the free expression landscape across the globe to gain a clearer country-by-country view of the state of free expression across academic, digital and...

Malta: Renewed call for justice 1,000 days after the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia

12 July marks 1,000 days since the assassination of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. On this anniversary, we, the undersigned organisations, once again demand that all those involved in her murder and the corruption she exposed are brought to justice.  

In recent weeks, yet more disturbing revelations of state corruption and impunity related to the case continue to emerge, underscoring the weaknesses in Malta’s rule of law, and entrenched impunity for both the murder of Caruana Galizia and the high-level abuses of power she investigated.

During a June 2020 hearing to compile evidence against murder suspect, Yorgen Fenech, the Magistrate ordered the police to investigate former Police Commissioner, Lawrence Cutajar for tipping off middleman, Melvin Theuma. Providing evidence in court, Theuma said Cutajar had informed him that he was under investigation both for the murder of Caruana Galizia and money laundering.

Former Deputy Commissioner and lead investigator, Silvio Valletta is also under investigation for his dealings with Yorgen Fenech, after he fell under suspicion.

At the public inquiry on 1 July, it emerged that the police had failed to take any action against Keith Schembri, in his previous capacity as Chief of Staff for former Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, and former Energy Minister, Konrad Mizzi after Carauna Galizia revealed they owned offshore Panama companies in 2016. Responding to the testimony of Assistant Commissioner, Ian Abdilla, who has recently been replaced as head of the Economic Crimes Unit, the board of inquiry expressed disbelief that the police had done “absolutely nothing” with regards to the Panama Papers. 

On 7 July, sources confirmed that Attorney General, Peter Grech, as the chief prosecutor, sent a note to police in 2016 advising them against investigating the Panama Papers, stressing that such an investigation would be “highly intrusive.” Such direct and unambiguous instructions from the Attorney General to restrict the police investigation into the content of Caruana Galizia’s work violated the responsibility of his post and was a clear obstruction to the course of justice rendering his position as Attorney General untenable. 

Investigations in Italy, France, Latvia and Montenegro have also revealed links to corruption related to Caruana Galizia’s investigations in Malta. 

Had the corruption which Caruana Galizia exposed – including the Panama Papers – been fully investigated and prosecuted at the time, it could have reduced the risk and isolation that she faced as a journalist, including an orchestrated campaign of harassment and vilification by high-level political and business figures in Malta.

The appointment of a new head of Economic Crimes Unit, Alexandra Mamo, and the nomination of a new Police Commissioner, Angelo Gafà, present an opportunity for the Maltese authorities to commit to tackling long-standing failures to investigate and prosecute allegations of high-level corruption and to reform institutions. In addition, the 18 June Venice Commission opinion on the Maltese government’s rule of law reform proposals is a welcome sign that the Maltese Government recognises the need for fundamental reform. 

Prime Minister, Robert Abela has stated that he expects police to investigate “all corners” of the assassination. Today, we reiterate our call that the Maltese authorities honour the legacy of Daphne Caruana Galizia and ensure that all of those implicated in her murder – from the hitmen to the masterminds – are brought to justice and the corruption she revealed is finally  prosecuted. The authorities should now establish Joint Investigation Teams with foreign police forces  tackling related issues, so that there can finally be an end to impunity in Malta, and full justice for Daphne.

ARTICLE 19

Association of European Journalists (AEJ)

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Free Press Unlimited

Index on Censorship

International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)

International Press Institute (IPI)

Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

PEN International

Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Scottish PEN

Transparency International