2 Apr 2020 | News and features, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
International Journalism Festival/Flickr
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]“In the Middle Ages people watched convicts getting quartered in public squares. Nowadays, on social media, they watch reporters as they live-tweet their ordeals: detention, physical attacks on the streets, losing their livelihoods,” said Turkish author and journalist Kaya Genç.
“For most Turks, watching journalists getting sacked or imprisoned or destroying each other’s careers became entertainment.”
Genç spoke to Index to answer questions posed by the Index youth advisory board about life as a journalist in Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his latest book, The Lion and the Nightingale: A Journey Through Modern Turkey.
The youth board are elected for six months, and meet once a month online over that period to discuss freedom of expression issues. They are based around the world.
Hana Meihan Davis, from Hong Kong, asked how Erdogan managed to strip Turkey of journalistic freedom. Genç explained that divisions have existed between political sects in the media for decades, which the current ruling party was then able to take advantage of.
“When Islamists were in trouble in the 1990s secularists supported court cases against them; when secularists were locked up some liberals applauded; when Kurds were imprisoned most journalists looked the other way. Now as most of their colleagues are sacked or locked up conservatives act as if all is normal,” said Genç, who is also a contributing editor to Index on Censorship magazine.
Amid this sense of apathy Erdogan moved to create “a small army of loyalists in the media” as other news sites and newspapers were closed down.
Davis followed up her question, asking if people realised what was happening at the time? This is a question often asked when we look back with hindsight at the gradual erosion of freedoms. Were people like a frog who doesn’t realise the temperature of his water is slowly being increased to boiling? Genç said some journalists saw the dangers.
“Reporters and editors declared their independence, or found new patrons, and they are producing excellent work away from the influence of state power. I’m sure they were aware of what was happening while they worked at titles now tamed and indirectly owned by the government.”
The landscape for journalists in Turkey today is rocky terrain. There is an acute awareness of the censorship laws that can be imposed, coupled with a determination to provide much needed accurate reporting.
From the UK, Saffiyah Khalique asked about the laws around “public sensitivities”, which can result in imprisonment for up to a year for disrespecting the beliefs of religious groups, insulting Turkishness and other such “offences”. Genç said they are used within society to silence political dissenters.
“Twitter trolls who present themselves as pro-government journalists use these unclear laws to put their enemies behind bars. If an artist, piano player or actor says something critical about the government, they go through their timeline, find something they find insulting, and ask the public prosecutor to step in.”
Despite this possibility of prosecution being ever around the corner, Genç said he does not feel unsafe or threatened as a journalist in Turkey. “I feel free”, he answered to a question from Emily Boyle, a dual citizen of the UK and Switzerland
Recognising the value of objectivity appears to be Genç’s lifeline. When Indian national Samarth Mishra asked what is the most difficult part of being a journalist in Turkey, Genç said: “The hardest thing for a writer reporting from Turkey is to remain objective. You can’t be bitter about the government. Readers can benefit from the cold heart of a writer who does her best to be objective in her reporting.”
He said: “Our job, as writers, is to hold people with power to account, not to promote this or that political leader, defend this or that political ideology, propagate for this or that country … When a writer inhibits a space where nobody can accuse her of partisanship, believe me the effect of her writing will be much greater.”
The Lion and the Nightingale, Genç’s latest book, was published recently. It takes the reader on a journey through modern Turkey while exploring its history, via interviews he conducted on the road. Egil Sturk, from Sweden, asked Genç if there were any questions he was hesitant to ask his interviewees.
Genç said: “I am hesitant to ask questions about people’s religious beliefs and fiery ideological commitments. I prefer to give them enough space to articulate themselves where the bizarre, the eerie appears like a diamond in a mine. When people feel safe they tell you the most amazing things. Like an analyst you need to just sit there and listen.”
In answer to a question from Aliyah Orr (UK) about the emotional impact of the interviews he was conducting, Genç said:
“The prison chronicle of my friend and colleague Murat Çelikkan … had the strongest emotional effect on me. We used to work together, behind adjacent desks, and his experience in prison was empowering and unsettling. His account of imprisonment was rich with detail and you could see a great writer disappearing into the story’s characters and particulars of his story.”
Faye Gear from Canada asked what is different about today’s landscape in terms of freedom of expression. To tackle the suppression of free speech, Genç said people must think for themselves.
“I grew up idolising individual thinkers and writers: Susan Sontag, Jacques Derrida, Chantal Mouffe, VS Naipaul,” said Genç. “Nowadays we are invited to subscribe to what seems to be the most forward-thinking tribe and then follow its leaders by liking and retweeting their political snippets.”
In the face of an atmosphere of censorship, Genç remains defiant. In answer to a question from Satyabhama Rajoria, from India, about the struggles he faces as a journalist and author, Genç said: “There is of course always the anxiety that comes with publishing your writing, but that is healthy. Bullies, from the left and the right, may take your sentences out of context but that, too, is something one can deal with.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”112300″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”3″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1585828417099-e398f95f-d0bf-6″ taxonomies=”7355″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
31 Mar 2020 | Covid 19 and freedom of expression, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”60471″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]As coronavirus spreads across Europe so too do issues surrounding the transparency and accuracy of information on it. This is deeply troubling given the importance of reliable information about the pandemic. So what exactly are the main roadblocks to accurate facts? Here are the key trends when it comes to coronavirus and free expression in Europe.
Scapegoating
Scapegoating, an unhelpful habit historically used by Russian propagandists to foist blame onto their Cold War opponents, is now being used to suggest that coronavirus may have been brewed in a lab by the Americans in order to cripple the Chinese economy. This is one of many bizarre theories that were spread among the Russian population in a bid to confuse and distract.
Another form of scapegoating has reared its head in France, in particular, in the form of racism against people with Asian heritage. There have been reports of French-Asians suffering racist abuse on the streets, public transport and in school. This has also been an issue in the USA, where President Donald Trump angered Chinese authorities by referring to coronavirus as the “Chinese Virus”.
Criminalisation of “fake news”
In the USA, the term “fake news” can easily be used to discredit accurate reporting that Trump doesn’t like, which is why the criminalisation of news designated as “fake” by world leaders generally is so dangerous. Hungary’s parliament has passed a law to let Prime Minister Viktor Orban rule by decree for an indefinite period of time, and the state has the power to imprison people considered to have spread false information – aka “fake news” – about coronavirus.
This trend is present elsewhere in Europe as governments attempt to control information on coronavirus. Patrick Sensburg, a member of the ruling party in Germany, said in an interview that the government should consider “ratcheting up statutory offenses” to penalise those spreading news considered fake by the state.
Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has also introduced fines for publishing false news and allegations that “cause panic and fear among citizens” in the mainstream press and social media.
Opaque about the figures
While high numbers of recorded cases and deaths from coronavirus are something every country would rather avoid, transparency is key to members of the public being fully informed and understanding the risks. According to the Financial Times, Kim Jong Un has publicly denied any cases in North Korea while at the same time quietly soliciting aid from abroad. In Europe, Turkey has displayed signs of being unwilling to disclose accurate figures. On 23 March, after data showed fewer and fewer people were being tested over successive days, possibly to reduce the number of cases on record, the Turkish Medical Association urged the Turkish government to test more people. They believe the government figures may be propaganda, designed to flatter the state’s control of the situation, which a doctor, speaking anonymously, claimed was in fact “out of control”.
Ill-informed leaders
At a time of a global pandemic, world leaders would serve their citizens best by bowing to the greater wisdom of medical experts. Unfortunately, some European leaders have appointed themselves as “experts” in the field of cures for coronavirus, an unfortunate echo of leaders who made false claims about cures for Aids when it swept through Africa. Speaking on state television for instance, President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus claimed that people in the countryside should continue working: “The tractor will heal everyone. The fields heal everyone”. Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, said he had found a reason to have an extra drink every day, after he claimed health specialists had told him that coronavirus “doesn’t grow wherever you put alcohol”. Please note: there is no scientific evidence to suggest that drinking alcohol has any effect on coronavirus.
We have previously reported on how censorship in China was impacting the way news about coronavirus was being reported, and vital information being distributed. We are also mapping all of the attacks on the media right now, which are growing sharply by the day. This represents one of the most worrying attacks on free speech in Europe right now.
The incidents on the map are collated by our staff, contributors and readers as well as our partners at the Justice for Journalists Foundation and verified by our team before pubication. Please check out the map here and do notify us via the map of any attacks we might have missed.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Mar 2020 | Awards, Fellowship 2020, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”112645″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This year’s three nominees in the digital activism category of Index on Censorship’s Freedom of Expression awards work in different areas of the online landscape but all are doing important work.
First up we have the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, or 7amleh, a non-profit organisation focused on protecting the human rights of Palestinians in the online space.
The organisation’s research has shown that two thirds of Palestinian youth are afraid to voice their political opinions online.
Israel routinely uses Palestinians’ private information from social media in its surveillance, leading many young Palestinians to self-censor after seeing family, friends and journalists arrested.
7amleh’s work protecting online safety and digital rights, advocacy and research has been crucial. It has campaigned with NGOs for amendments to the Palestinian Authority’s Cybercrimes Law, the development of the first Arabic Digital Security Manual and digital training being implemented into the Palestinian education system.
Our second nominee is eQualitie, an international group of digital activists whose mission is to promote and defend fundamental freedoms and human rights, including the free flow of information online.
Based in Montreal, eQualitie develop technologies to prevent cyber attacks, work to circumvent internet censorship and secure online communication. Additionally, they launch critical investigations to find the source of attacks and expose them.
As well as advocating free expression online, eQualitie have also delivered security training to over 3,000 journalists, activists and members of the public in over 40 countries. They have defended over 400 organisations from cyber attacks, including Black Lives Matter, and more than a million people use their protected websites every day.
Founded in 2010, our third nominee – HarassMap – allows victims and witnesses of sexual harassment in Egypt to pinpoint on a map exactly where their harassment occurred and also gives them access to a community of people who can help them.
The organisation has collected reports of more than 1,500 incidents of harassment and these are used to put an end to stereotypes that blame the harassed, make people understand that sexual harassment is a crime that has serious consequences, build campaigns to change perceptions and equip volunteers and partners with information that they use to create zero-tolerance attitudes and behaviour in schools, universities, workplaces, and on the streets.
It is based on the idea that if more people start taking action when sexual harassment happens in their presence, they can end what they call “an epidemic”.
HarassMap’s work saw Cairo University become the first in the Middle East to implement an anti-sexual harassment strategy. HarassMap has also partnered with Uber on sexual harassment policy and training.
The winner of the digital activism category will be announced at our awards event at the May Fair Hotel in London on 30 April. Digital activism is one of the four categories that will be recognised at the awards, alongside campaigning, journalism and the arts.
Our 2019 winner in this category was Fundación Karisma.
The winner of the 2020 journalism award will be chosen by a panel of judges which includes Ruth Ibegbuna, founder of multi award-winning youth leadership charity Reclaim and now director of Roots — an initiative aimed at bringing together people from different walks of life.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
21 Nov 2019 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements, Turkey, Turkey Statements
Turkish authorities re-arrested the internationally known Turkish novelist Ahmet Altan just one week after his release from more than three years in detention. Index on Censorship and 24 other NGOs say that his re-arrest, on 12 November, was an extraordinarily low blow in a case that has been marked by political interference and arbitrariness from start to finish.
In addition to ongoing violations of his right to freedom of expression, stemming from a prosecution that should never have been brought in the first place, his re-arrest is a form of judicial harassment. Altan should be immediately released and his conviction vacated, the organisations say.
On 4 November this year, Altan was convicted of “aiding a terrorist organisation without being its member” and sentenced to 10 years and six months in jail. He was released on bail pending appeal against conviction by the defence. Altan had originally been convicted of “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order” and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, that conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeals who ordered a retrial on the lesser charge.
After the verdict in his retrial was handed down, the prosecutor appealed the decision to release him and on 12 November another panel of judges accepted this appeal and ruled that he should be re-arrested. Altan’s defence lawyers were not formally told of the court’s decision, but instead they learned about it through the pro-government media. Altan was detained later that evening and sent to Silivri Prison the following day.
Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits all arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the European Court of Human Rights has held that arbitrariness can arise where there has been an element of bad faith on the part of the authorities. Altan’s re-arrest and detention gives every appearance of being politically motivated, arbitrary, and incompatible with the right to liberty under Article 5. The organisations pointed to the following aspects of his re-arrest:
- Despite having no right to do so, both the Turkish Presidency and Parliament sought to make representations arguing against the decision to release Altan – a move designed to put political pressure on the court.
- The reasons the judge gave to cancel Altan’s release included that his activities “influenced many sympathisers through the news” and that “those who were interrogated for the same crime but fled the country have engaged in discourse and lobbying against our country’’ – grounds that are both unfounded and lack legitimacy as reasons to deprive someone of liberty. The judge further castigated Altan for refusing to show remorse for a crime he did not commit.
- The judge also considered that Altan was a flight risk and issued a warrant for him to be re-arrested. However, the fact that the decision was almost immediately leaked to the media suggests that the authorities did not genuinely consider him to be a flight risk: Altan could have fled immediately upon hearing the news in the media. Instead, Altan was arrested at his home as he waited for the police. The next day, the court still sent him to prison custody insisting that he was a flight risk.
Thomas Hughes, executive director of ARTICLE 19 said: “The entire process of Ahmet Altan’s trial and retrial, including his prolonged detention, his release and then re-arrest on spurious grounds, has been completely arbitrary.
“The same court that convicted Altan of ‘attempting to overthrow the constitutional order’ then oversaw a retrial and convicted him of ‘aiding a terrorist organisation’, on the same evidence, which primarily consisted of Altan’s writings. That court then released him on bail and another court with no experience of the case ruled for his re-arrest.
“The case of Ahmet Altan is emblematic of the crackdown against writers and journalists in Turkey. Political revenge rather than justice has dominated the proceedings.”
Ahmet Altan’s case challenging his detention is still pending at the European Court of Human Rights. Other decisions by the ECtHR which are binding on Turkey and relate to prosecutions for free speech have had a significant impact on the outcome of the respective trials, including in the case of Ahmet’s brother, Mehmet Altan.
A ruling from the European Court setting out the scope and nature of the violations in Ahmet Altan’s case would likely have a decisive impact on his detention and the appeals process in his case.
We repeat our call for the Turkish authorities to release Ahmet Altan and vacate the conviction against him. The Turkish authorities should cease all judicial harassment of individuals on the basis of their political opinions and for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of expression.
Signatories:
ARTICLE 19
Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
Amnesty International
Articolo 21
Cartoonist’s Rights Network International (CRNI)
Danish PEN
English PEN
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
German PEN
Human Rights Watch
IFEX
Index on Censorship
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Norwegian PEN
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
PEN America
PEN Canada
PEN International
P24, Platform for Independent Journalism
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Swedish PEN
World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
Background
Ahmet Altan is an internationally known Turkish novelist who was convicted to life imprisonment without parole in February 2018 for “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order” in an unfair trial that primarily relied on his writings and comments in the media. His case was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeals in July, who recommended a retrial on equally bogus charges of “aiding a terrorist organisation without being its member”. On 4 November this year, Altan was convicted on the new charges and sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison. He was released on bail pending appeal, after having served more than three years in detention, awaiting trial or appeal. On 12 November he was returned to prison, just one week after his release.
In its verdict on 4 November, the judge ruled that the parliament and the presidency could not intervene in the case as victims. Despite this, on 5 November parliament made an application challenging, inter alia, Altan’s release. It also made a separate application challenging the verdict.
On 6 November, the prosecutor also challenged the decision to release Altan on the grounds that there was a flight risk, despite the fact that a foreign travel ban had been put in place.
On 7 November, Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No 26 reviewed the legal challenges and confirmed its previous decision to release him and the case file was referred to the Heavy Penal Court No 27 for review.
On 8 November, the presidency challenged the verdict, including the release of Altan, stating that all defendants should be charged on the basis of the initial indictment.
On 11 November, the presiding judge and prosecutor of Heavy Penal Court No 27 were changed.
On 12 November, the court, with a new judge and prosecutor, reviewed the legal decision of Court No 26 and issued a ruling. The ruling was not provided to the defence lawyers, but was leaked to the pro-government press which immediately reported that an arrest warrant had been issued. Ahmet Altan was re-arrested that evening, before the decision was communicated to him, or his lawyers, officially.
On 13 November, Altan was taken before the presiding judge at Heavy Penal Court No 27 to review his arrest and decide on his transfer to prison. The judge ruled that he should be returned to prison.
Note: ARTICLE 19 submitted an expert opinion to the court during the first trial, which examined the coup-related charges and evidence against international standards on the right to freedom of expression. Human Rights Watch also assessed the indictment and, like ARTICLE 19, found that the journalistic works cited expressed political opinions and did not incite or advocate violence. No new evidence was presented at the retrial on terrorism charges.
