19 Dec 2025 | Americas, Asia and Pacific, Australia, Europe and Central Asia, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News, Palestine, United Kingdom, United States
On Wednesday Greater Manchester Police and Metropolitan Police said they’d arrest individuals who amplify the slogan “globalise the intifada”. They clearly meant business. No sooner had they made the announcement that they arrested two for just that. This comes in the wake of the atrocity on Bondi Beach, Sydney, in which fifteen people were killed. This attack was unambiguously antisemitic. It followed the murder of two Jewish people on Yom Kippur in Manchester and two people in Washington DC leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. It followed a foiled plot for the mass murder of Jews in Preston. All of these in addition to skyrocketing incidents of everyday antisemitism.
The case made by Sir Mark Rowley and Sir Stephen Watson is that the recent series of antisemitic attacks since 7 October 2023 have changed the context in which the phrase “globalise the intifada” should be understood.
Whenever speech is restricted, it rightly comes onto our radar and our instinct is to scrutinise such decisions closely. As a matter of principle we support the right of anyone to speak freely as long as their words are lawful and are not obviously intended to cause physical harm to others. Thus we have always defended a wide range of speech, including speech that is offensive, sometimes deeply so, or unsettling, but we do not defend hate speech or incitement to violence. This approach is in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression as a qualified right.
Ultimately our view of this particular ban will rest on how the slogan “globalise the intifada” is understood, and whether it amounts to hate speech and incitement or not. People will argue both sides and indeed have way before Wednesday’s news. New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, for example, has justified the words – but he has also said that it’s not language he’d use.
Index is in the market of words because words matter. Words can bring about positive change, which is why autocrats fear them and try to control them. They can also bring about harm. But proving when speech leads to harm is very difficult. In the end, we intend to see what the courts decide in this particular case before taking a final position.
Has the space for ambiguity around the words “globalise the intifada” lessened since Bondi? Perhaps. However, from Index’s viewpoint, the state – the police and the CPS – will need to demonstrate its case that these words are harmful in and of themselves. Where meaning is genuinely ambiguous, we always argue that the criminal law should tread carefully. Criminalisation should not be the default response to contested political speech. Slippery slopes are not mere abstractions.
There is another dimension too. When we at Index think about bans we don’t just think about whether they’re justified, we interrogate whether they’ll bring about the intended result. In this case the aim of a ban is said by the police chiefs to tackle antisemitism. It’s clearly a justifiable aim. But history does not offer encouragement that bans on speech reduce prejudice.
However, as Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to use the slogan implies, freedom of expression includes not only the right to speak but the responsibility to do so with care, especially in times as volatile as these. The right to say the words does not carry a compulsion to do so, particularly in circumstances where the consequences have been demonstrated. Words matter, yes. But lives – black, white, Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, non-Jew – matter more.
10 Nov 2025 | Asia and Pacific, China, Europe and Central Asia, News, United Kingdom
Last week was a bad press week for Sheffield Hallam University after it was revealed they paused research into human rights abuses in Xinjiang because of a run-in with Beijing. Following research by Professor Laura Murphy on Uyghur forced labour, the university experienced threats against its China-based staff and blocked access in China. The university’s insurer pulled back and then university administrators barred her from continuing the work, at which stage Murphy threatened legal action for violation of academic freedom. The university has reversed its decision, albeit only after an unnecessary struggle. A shocking story for some, but not for us, and indeed the many other UK academics who came forward this week with similar stories.
People often ask me about “cancel culture” on campus. My usual response is: yes, it’s a problem but you know what’s also problematic and not talked about nearly as much? Chinese influence. We’ve been shouting about this for ages, and have dug deep via reports, follow-ups and panel discussions. As was the case with Sheffield Hallam, the influence is usually exerted through stick and carrot: the stick = harassment of students and staff, the carrot = access to China’s lucrative market. Given the growing number of Chinese students in the UK and the proliferation of UK joint institutes in China, we urgently need to address this problem. China is an incredibly important story. It can’t be airbrushed.
Questions about academic freedom aren’t confined to China-related issues or to cancel culture, as another academic freedom story from this week reminded us. This one concerns SOAS, who next June plan to host a conference by a group called Brismes, a well-respected UK-based organisation within the field of Middle Eastern studies. SOAS isn’t just renting a space to Brismes. They’ve issued the call for submissions on their own site too. As part of that call, participants are asked to declare whether their university is “built on captured land”. Several organisations that campaign for academic freedom have accused them of breaking free speech rules. They’re right to make the accusation. It’s a thinly veiled attempt to exclude Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian academics, who either might not support the framing or might find themselves in jeopardy if they do.
I have issue with compelled speech, as I’ve written about. It mirrors the tactics of authoritarian regimes, not open democracies. And in a university environment, it’s especially problematic. They should be about dialogue not dogma. Sadly such ideological purity tests (as one academic I spoke about this story called it) aren’t unique to SOAS or to this specific issue, which I reference to provide context not justification.
Of course there are usually other universities people can speak at, just as there might be other universities one can research China’s human rights abuses. But is that the point? Any university closing its doors to academics – whether out of fear of losing funding or because of demands for thought conformity – is bad, made all the worse because it’s part of a broader pattern.
21 Oct 2025 | News
Today marks the fifth Global Encryption Day.
Organised by the Global Encryption Coalition (GEC), a network of 466 civil society organisations, companies, and individual cybersecurity experts from 108 countries, Global Encryption Day aims to draw global attention to the risks of rushing through legislation to add technological “back doors” to encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal as well as cloud-based data services.
In democratic countries, the reasons for wanting to break encryption are well-intentioned – everyone wants to stop child sexual abuse and thwart terrorist attacks. Also, the security services are clearly interested in doing it. The problem is that there is no way to provide back-door access to encrypted data and communications without compromising the privacy and security of everyone who uses them.
Since it was established five years ago, the GEC has challenged legislative proposals for encryption in countries including Australia, Brazil, France, India, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, and the USA. In 2021, the Coalition successfully pressured the Belgian Government to scrap a proposed law to enable backdoor end-to-end encryption.
Index published a piece by the New European’s political editor James Ball recently on age verification. He wrote: “It is the case that since end-to-end encryption has become the default online, intelligence agencies are very keen to find ways to circumvent it – and to make the internet possible to monitor again.”
In the UK, the government is trying to break encryption. We wrote earlier this year about the government’s attempts to get access to Apple’s encrypted data. Our CEO Jemimah Steinfeld also wrote recently about threats to encryption in the Online Safety Act.
She wrote, “In a tolerant, pluralistic society, this may seem unthreatening, but not everyone lives in such a society. Journalists speak to sources via apps offering end-to-end encryption of messages. Activists connect with essential networks on them too. At Index we use them all the time.”
The Coalition is using a parrot (see above) as the emblem of Global Encryption Day. You may see posts on social media inviting users to “meet the parrot that knows too much. Curious, chatty, and ready to repeat everything it hears”.
Index believes encryption needs preserving. Help up support Global Encryption Day today.
10 Oct 2025 | Africa, Americas, Asia and Pacific, Australia, Madagascar, Middle East and North Africa, News, Saudi Arabia, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at social media restrictions in Afghanistan and the indictment of Letitia James.
Afghanistan
Taliban sources have confirmed that new restrictions on social media platforms in Afghanistan this week are intentional.
Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are among platforms facing disruption, according to global internet monitor NetBlocks, who also reported another internet outage in Kandahar province.
Last week saw a total telecommunications outage across Afghanistan, which Taliban officials told journalists was caused by old fibre optic cables that needed to be replaced. With this somehow causing a country-wide blackout of both internet and phone services.
USA
New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted on charges of fraud as part of a wider push by President Donald Trump to use the Justice Department as a weapon against his political enemies.
In 2022 in her position as Attorney General, James had filed a civil lawsuit against the Trump Organisation, as well as aiding in a three-year criminal investigation into Trump’s New York business dealings that led to a now overturned $500 million fraud ruling.
In order to prosecute James and also the former head of the FBI James Comey who had investigated Russian interference in the 2016 elections (and was fired by Trump), the President installed his former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan as interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia. This was after her predecessor refused to bring charges against people Trump had characterised as enemies.
In September before these prosecutions started, Trump posted to Truth Social a message he later admitted was intended as a private memo to Attorney General Pam Bondi stating: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Comey this week pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to congress.
Australia
Canberra, Australia, 9 October, whistleblower David McBride, who was jailed for leaking documents that alleged Australian Special forces had killed innocent people in Afghanistan, had an application rejected to have his case heard by Australia’s High Court.
This is the latest in an ongoing battle to have his sentencing overturned.
During the original trial, the Australian Government moved to prevent McBride from seeking protection under Australia’s whistleblower laws by blocking expert witnesses from speaking, citing “public interest immunity laws”.
The former military lawyer-turned whistleblower was convicted of three charges last year and sentenced to five years and eight months in prison for the theft of classified documents and for passing the documents to journalists at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
The documents formed the bases of an ABC investigation titled ‘The Afghan Files’ that claimed Australian Special forces units had committed war crimes whilst stationed in Afghanistan.
McBride is the only person imprisoned in relation to these crimes.
Madagascar
Even following the dissolution of his government, embattled President Andry Rajoelina of Madagascar refuses to step down in the face of large scale youth-led protests.
Rajoelina said at a press conference: “I swear that if power cuts persist in the capital within a year, I will resign.”
Protesters from group Gen-Z Mada were not convinced, calling for more protests to take place on Thursday, during which rubber bullets and tear gas were used to disperse demonstrators. They also called for a general strike as a display that they reject the President’s promises.
Saudi Arabia
Human Rights Watch have told comedians who performed at Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh Comedy festival that they “cannot accept” money that originated from the government of Saudi Arabia.
The statement comes as comedians who performed at the festival scramble to get public opinion back on their side.
Bill Burr, Louis C.K. and Omid Djalili have all attempted to spin their participation as positive, whilst comics Aziz Ansari and Jessica Kirson offered to donate their fees in a futile effort to buy back public opinion.
