3 May 2018 | Journalism Toolbox Spanish
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”La estrechez de miras de los gobiernos y la industria están poniendo en jaque a la libertad de expresión, asegura Ian Brown
“][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
Yuri Samoilov/Flickr
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Una de las protecciones clave de la libertad de expresión en redes es la capacidad que tienen los proveedores de servicios de Internet (ISP) de permitir el acceso de sus usuarios a contenido de todas partes del mundo. En Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y muchos otros países, las ISP están exentas de responsabilidad por transmitir páginas web desde sitios remotos a sus usuarios. Como «meros conductos», no necesitan instaurar los exhaustivos controles por difamación o infracción de copyright que se exigen a los medios impresos. Incluso cuando actúan como servidores para sitios web, las ISP están exentas de responsabilidad sobre el contenido de los usuarios siempre y cuando el material ilegal se retire cuando se les notifique. Esta es una de las razones de la explosiva proliferación de contenido accesible en las redes en los últimos diez años.
Últimamente, sin embargo, los gobiernos han estado buscando la manera de hacer que las ISP desempeñen una función más firme como reguladoras del ciberespacio. Concretamente, están animando a las ISP a tomar medidas con respecto a las infracciones de copyright online, el intercambio de imágenes de abuso de menores y el uso de internet para promover el terrorismo.
Estas medidas podrían perjudicar gravemente la libertad de comunicación de todos los individuos. Si bien los usuarios de internet más experimentados suelen saber esquivar los bloqueos que introducen las ISP, la mayoría de la gente no está muy familiarizada con estas herramientas de sorteo de obstáculos, como pueden ser los proxys o la encriptación. Los gobiernos democráticos están debatiendo la restricción de una amplia gama de material, como información sobre la eutanasia y el suicidio, pornografía «extrema» y la «glorificación» del terrorismo.
Los gobiernos están animando a las ISP a tomar medidas de autorregulación del tipo «amable», con métodos de decisión administrativos, no judiciales, de sancionar a usuarios y páginas web. Algunas ISP han introducido cláusulas en sus contratos que les permitan desconectar a ciertos usuarios una vez se dé un número concreto de alegaciones de infracción de copyright contra ellos. La Unión Europea está alentando el desarrollo de líneas telefónicas directas financiadas por la industria que permitan al público denunciar imágenes de abuso infantil, siguiendo el ejemplo de la Internet Watch Foundation británica, según el cual algunas ISP deniegan automáticamente el acceso a webs que hayan sido denunciadas. El gobierno neerlandés ha aprobado un código de conducta que promueve la eliminación de material «indeseable» y «dañino» entre las ISP.
Si bien es cierto que estos planes son más flexibles y menos pesados que una regulación legislativa, lo más habitual es que prescindan de la imparcialidad procesal y la protección de los derechos fundamentales que se promueven desde el escrutinio independiente, tanto judicial como parlamentario. Pocos planes incluyen una protección substancial de los derechos individuales de expresión, asociación o intimidad. A menudo se introducen bajo amenaza de legislación o litigios, decididos y realizados a puerta cerrada «al amparo de la ley», sin consideración por la ciudadanía ni participación por parte de esta.
La aplicación del copyright
Las industrias musical y cinematográfica han pasado gran parte de la última década aterrorizadas por el nivel de infracciones de copyright existente en internet. En general, su reacción ha sido un alud de pleitos contra personas que comparten archivos. Los casos ascienden actualmente a 60.000 solo en Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, parece haber afectado más bien poco al volumen de archivos que se comparten, generando al mismo tiempo una decente cantidad de mala prensa. «Grupo de música demanda a sus fans» no es el tipo de cobertura mediática que a los artistas les gusta ver.
Las industrias del contenido intentan ahora encontrar modos más sencillos de desconectar a usuarios y páginas acusadas de infracción. Desde 2007, han estado alentando a las ISP a filtrar el acceso a internet de sus usuarios, bloquear el acceso a software P2P e implementar planes de «tres strikes», según los cuales se bloquea a los usuarios después de tres alegaciones (sin verificar) de infracción de copyright (http://www. eff.org/ les/ lenode/effeurope/ifpi_ ltering_memo.pdf). Las ISP que se han negado han recibido acusaciones de estar robándoles las ganancias a los músicos, e incluso se las ha animado (como hizo Bono, líder de U2, en un artículo de opinión para el New York Times) a liderar el rastreo de malhechores pertenecientes al gobierno Chino.
En el caso irlandés de EMI contra Eircom (2008), ciertos sellos musicales emprendieron acciones legales para exigir a una importante ISP que filtrase el intercambio de archivos por P2P. De haber ganado, no hay duda de que habría supuesto el bloqueo masivo de intercambios legítimos de archivos, pues las ISP no están facultadas para decidir si un uso específico de una obra protegida está autorizado o no. Se desestimó el caso cuando Eircom accedió a modificar los contratos con sus clientes para permitir que se desconecte a los usuarios que ignoren las advertencias de una presunta infracción de copyright.
La ISP británica Virgin Media accedió en 2008 a enviar cartas de advertencia a clientes que la Industria Fonográfica Británica identificaba compartiendo música ilegalmente. Sin embargo, ninguna de las partes ha publicado datos sobre si estas acciones han reducido el nivel de infracciones del copyright en la red de Virgin. Otras ISP británicas, como Carphone Warehouse, se han negado a participar en esta campaña «educativa».
Los titulares del copyright han estado ejerciendo presión sobre los políticos para que algunas medidas autorreguladoras sean obligatorias, con éxito parcial. Francia fue la primera en introducir la ley de los «tres strikes», con su loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur internet de 2009. Tras recibir tres alegaciones de infracción de un usuario en un periodo de 18 meses, una agencia del gobierno podría exigir a las ISP que suspendan la conexión de ese individuo de dos a 12 meses. La primera versión de la ley violaba la presunción de inocencia y los derechos a la libertad de comunicación y expresión, según el gabinete constitucional. La ley ha sido revisada y requiere de la presencia de un juez que decida sobre la suspensión del acceso al usuario en cuestión.
La Digital Economy Bill presentada actualmente en el parlamento británico permitiría al gobierno exigir a las ISP que introduzcan «medidas técnicas» para reducir la velocidad de conexión de un usuario, bloquearle el acceso a ciertas webs o suspender la conexión sin necesidad de supervisión judicial. No obstante, el proyecto de ley ha recibido críticas incluso de la industria musical por «no ser […] una ley racional o bien planteada», que están «intentando pasar a toda prisa en los últimos meses de un gobierno impopular» (http://newsblog. thecmuwebsite.com/post/Pure-Mint-boss-resigns-BPI-committee-over- Digital-Economy-Bill.aspx). El gobierno español ha introducido un proyecto de ley que permitiría al cuerpo administrativo exigir a las ISP que bloqueen webs comerciales que estén poniendo a disposición del público obras infractoras de copyright. Por otro lado, la coalición del gobierno alemán declaró recientemente: «No aceptaremos iniciativas que ofrezcan posibles modos jurídicos de bloquear el acceso a internet en casos de infracciones de copyright».
A nivel europeo, Viviane Reding —a punto de ser comisaria de justicia, derechos fundamentales y ciudadanía— ha advertido a los países de la Unión que no desconecten a quienes están presuntamente compartiendo contenido. En noviembre de 2009, Reding avisó a la autoridad reguladora de telecomunicaciones en España que «la represión no resolverá por sí sola el problema de la piratería en internet; puede que en muchos aspectos incluso vaya en contra de los derechos y libertades que han sido parte de los valores europeos desde la Revolución Francesa».
No obstante, al mismo tiempo, la Comisión Europea está negociando en secreto un nuevo tratado contra las falsificaciones junto a EE.UU., Japón y otras naciones desarrolladas que exigiría una política de tres strikes. El texto del borrador es tan polémico que, el verano pasado, el representante comercial de Estados Unidos se negó a compartir una versión escrita con la comisión, que informaba en un memorándum filtrado de que «estos debates internos fueron delicados, dados los diferentes puntos de vista concernientes al capítulo de internet, tanto dentro de la Administración, con el Congreso y entre los accionistas (proveedores de contenido por un lado, partidarios de la «libertad» en internet por el otro)».
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Imágenes de abuso infantil
El uso de internet para la distribución de imágenes de abusos sexuales a niños es claramente abominable, igual que lo es fuera de las redes. Las ISP han estado bajo gran presión desde mediados de los 90 para intentar bloquear este contenido. La policía metropolitana de Londres amenazó en 1996 con incautarse de los servidores de las ISP británicas a menos que bloqueasen algunos foros de Usenet. Además de acceder a la petición, las ISP formaron la Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) para establecer unos parámetros de rastreabilidad de sus usuarios y operar un número de teléfono desde el que recibir avisos de individuos que hubieran encontrado imágenes ilegales de abusos.
Los propios analistas de la IWF deciden si las imágenes son ilegales de acuerdo con la ley británica. Después se pasan los informes a las ISP de Reino Unido, que retiran el contenido ilegal de sus servidores, y a la policía de otros países, por medio del Organismo contra la Delincuencia Organizada Grave, para ISP extranjeras.
A consecuencia de la enorme presión ejercida por el gobierno, la mayoría de las ISP de consumo en Reino Unido utilizan hoy día un sistema «Cleanfeed», desarrollado por la empresa British Telecom, para bloquear el acceso de clientes a páginas web en la lista negra de la IWF. El ministro británico de Interior, Vernon Coaker, dijo a la Cámara de los Comunes en marzo de 2009 que «el gobierno se ha comprometido a alcanzar un 100% de bloqueo en redes comerciales… Si ese enfoque no funciona, estamos considerando varias opciones alternativas, incluida la vía legislativa si es necesario». Sin embargo, en octubre de 2009 decidieron que la tasa de bloqueo «voluntario» del 98,6% hacía la legislación innecesaria.
El modelo británico de autorregulación se ha imitado ampliamente. Los números de teléfono existen en Australia, Canadá, Taiwán, Japón, Rusia, Sudáfrica, Corea del Sur, Estados Unidos y por toda Europa, aunque las listas de contenido ilegal están en control policial, en lugar de mediante organizaciones independientes. La Comisión Europea ha financiado la Asociación Internacional de Líneas Directas de Internet desde 1999 al amparo del programa «sobre la seguridad en internet».
La Comisión Europea también financia la red policial CIRCAMP, que ha desarrollado un sistema de bloqueo para ISP llamado Child Sexual Abuse Anti-Distribution Filter. Lo utilizan ISP de Dinamarca, Finlandia, Italia, Malta, Noruega y Suecia. Solo el gobierno alemán ha optado por reevaluar el plan, con un periodo de prueba de 12 meses enfocado en la retirada de material en el origen en lugar de exigir bloqueos a las ISP.
El hecho de que las ISP bloqueen automáticamente, sin decisión judicial, el acceso a contenido web que figure en listas negras secretas supone un importante problema de libertad de expresión. En Reino Unido, a los usuarios que intenten acceder a páginas bloqueadas —incluidas las de webs como la Wikipedia o el Internet Archive— normalmente solo se les informa de que la página no existe. A los sitios web extranjeros no se les suele notificar, ni se les da la oportunidad de protestar contra la decisión de bloquearlos. La situación deja mucho que desear según los estándares estadounidenses de libertad de expresión, sobre los cuales el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos, en el caso de 1965 Freedman contra Maryland, dictaminó: «Solo un fallo judicial en un procedimiento contencioso asegura la sensibilidad necesaria para con la libertad de expresión, solo un procedimiento que requiera un fallo judicial valdrá para imponer una restricción final válida».
Se han filtrado varias listas negras de distintos países, y al parecer incluyen contenido legal, si bien en ocasiones de mal gusto. Se han publicado supuestas listas de bloqueo de Australia, Dinamarca, Finlandia, Noruega y Tailandia. La lista de Australia al parecer incluía «portales de póker online, enlaces de YouTube, webs de porno gay y heterosexual, páginas sobre la eutanasia, páginas de religiones periféricas además de algunas concernientes al cristianismo y las páginas de inicio de empresas y médicos privados». La lista finlandesa incluía una web que criticaba el sistema finlandés de bloqueo y la lista de dominios bloqueados. Según el responsable del sitio, Matti Nikki, la policía nacional se ha negado a retirar la web de la lista negra, y un tribunal administrativo ha rechazado recibir su queja incluso después de que un fiscal rehusase presentar cargos contra Nikki por falta de pruebas (http://lapsiporno.info/english-2008–02–15.html).
Recientemente, el gobierno belga ha criticado los procesos judiciales de bloqueo de sitios web por ser demasiado pesados. Su Unidad Federal de Crimen Informático detecta de 800 a 1.000 páginas con imágenes de abuso infantil cada año, pero raras veces recurre a los tribunales para hacer que las bloqueen. El ministro de empresa, Vicent Van Quickenborne, ha propuesto en su lugar un protocolo de autorregulación según el cual las ISP podrían bloquear contenido ilegal, incluidas páginas racistas, de odio y de fraude por internet, sin necesitar de una decisión judicial.
La Comisión Europea ha propuesto extender sistemas de bloqueo por toda la UE, por mucho que se estén acumulando las pruebas de que el impacto es mínimo sobre la distribución de imágenes de abuso infantil. Graham Watson, eurodiputado y antiguo presidente del comité de las libertades civiles del Parlamento Europeo, afirmaba en octubre de 2009 que «la protección de los niños es una cuestión de extrema importancia, pero esto no quiere decir que la comisión pueda proponer medidas que, además de ser totalmente inútiles, acarreen duraderas consecuencias para el derecho a la libertad de comunicación en Europa».
La lucha contra el terrorismo y la expresión «extremista»
Muchos estados europeos ven en internet un frente propagandístico en su «guerra contra el terror», y han prohibido la «glorificación», «apología» o «promoción pública» del terrorismo. Es muy difícil para los tribunales, por no mencionar los cuerpos de policía y las agencias administrativas, interpretar lenguaje tan vago en un área tan polémica, al mismo tiempo que protegen la libertad de expresión.
Desde 2007, Europol ha coordinado el programa «Check the Web» para monitorizar páginas web de extremismo islámico, y mantiene una lista de direcciones web y comunicados realizados por organizaciones terroristas. La propuesta inicial del proyecto sugería que «deben monitorizarse numerosas páginas web en una amplia variedad de idiomas, evaluándolas y, de ser necesario, bloqueándolas u obligándolas a cerrar»; no obstante, aún no es el caso. Los gobiernos alemán, neerlandés, checo y británico están investigando los aspectos prácticos en un programa de investigación que «aborde la prevención de contenido terrorista en internet». En su plan para los próximos cinco años, la Comisión Europea ha propuesto que, para reducir la amenaza terrorista, «han de facilitarse medios técnicos adecuados y debe mejorar la cooperación entre los sectores privado y público. El objetivo es restringir la diseminación de propaganda terrorista y el apoyo práctico a operaciones terroristas».
Varios estados miembros ya están hablando del uso de poderes para exigir a las ISP que bloqueen páginas extremistas. La Asamblea Nacional Francesa está debatiendo la loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la performance de la sécurité intérieure, que obligaría a las ISP a bloquear «sin demora» el acceso a páginas de una lista secreta en poder del ministerio del interior. El gobierno neerlandés ha aprobado un código de conducta que promueve que las ISP desarrollen criterios para eliminar material «indeseable» y «dañino». El gobierno británico no ha pronunciado palabra al respecto últimamente, pero en 2008 la por entonces ministra del interior Jacqui Smith declaró al canal Radio 4 de la BBC: «Tenemos que trabajar con los proveedores de servicios de internet, tenemos que usar de una vez por todas las lecciones que hemos aprendido sobre cómo proteger a nuestros hijos de los pedófilos y del acoso sexual en internet, para dar forma al modo en el que lo usaremos para prevenir el extremismo violento y hacer frente al terrorismo también».
Es relativamente sencillo definir qué es una imagen de abuso infantil. A la comunidad internacional le está costando encontrar una definición sólida de «terrorismo», por no hablar de su exaltación o fomento. Hasta la respetada abogada de derechos humanos Cherie Booth, consejera de la reina, llegó a ser acusada de fomentar el terrorismo por sus declaraciones de 2002 a la BBC: «Mientras los jóvenes sientan que su única esperanza es hacerse volar por los aires, nunca avanzaremos».
Los intentos por bloquear el acceso a material «extremista» en internet, por lo tanto, probablemente interfieran en gran medida con la capacidad de los usuarios para hablar sobre la situación en Afganistán, Irak y los territorios Palestinos, entre otros. El bloqueo sería de proporcionalidad cuestionable, dado su impacto limitado en ciertos usuarios. La reducción de la radicalización es un objetivo totalmente legítimo, pero en un estudio reciente de estrategias posibles, Tim Stevens y Peter R. Neumann llegaron a la conclusión de que bloquear páginas es «rudimentario, costoso y contraproducente».
Es fácil entender el atractivo que tienen las soluciones «autorreguladoras» para el gobierno y la industria frente a problemas sociales complejos, como lo son la infracción del copyright, las imágenes de abuso infantil y la radicalización de terroristas. Con ellas, podría creerse que los gobiernos están «haciendo algo», que a corto plazo podría resultar razonablemente efectivo, mientras reducen los costes policiales y el escrutinio de tribunales y cuerpos legislativos. Las ISP se llevan los aplausos por su «responsabilidad social» mientras eluden el peso de una regulación potencialmente más intensa.
El escrutinio parlamentario no es garantía automática de la calidad de una ley, especialmente cuando gobiernos como el del nuevo laborismo en Reino Unido se sirven de ella para «enviar mensajes» en lugar de tomar medidas efectivas y proporcionadas. El sistema judicial es de lenta reacción por necesidad frente a una tecnología y ambiente político que avanzan vertiginosamente, con casos clave que el Tribunal Europeo por los Derechos Humanos a menudo tarda una década en cerrar. Organismos intergubernamentales como la Unión Europea y el Consejo de Europa han actuado más rápidamente proponiendo nuevas medidas contra la distribución de archivos, imágenes de abuso infantil y discursos extremistas que para proteger los derechos fundamentales en la era de la información.
Con todo, son las mejores instituciones con las que contamos para proteger la libertad de expresión y los derechos vinculados a esta contra las acciones de gobiernos e industrias cortas de miras. El Consejo de Europa ha recomendado, tarde, que el bloqueo solo debería darse si «concierne a contenido específico y claramente identificable, si una autoridad nacional competente ha tomado una decisión sobre su ilegalidad y si la decisión puede revisarse por un tribunal u organismo regulador independiente e imparcial». Tras una batalla formidable entre varios estados miembros y el Parlamento Europeo, el paquete de Telecomunicaciones de la UE incluye protección específica para los derechos de los usuarios, según la cual:
Las medidas que tomen los Estados Miembros sobre el acceso o uso de los usuarios a servicios y aplicaciones a través de redes de comunicación electrónica respetarán los derechos y libertades fundamentales de las personas naturales […] estas medidas […] solo podrán imponerse si son apropiadas, proporcionadas y necesarias en una sociedad democrática, y su implementación estará sujeta a garantías procesales adecuadas […] incluidas la protección judicial efectiva y un juicio justo.
Está ahora en manos de aquellos que se preocupan por los derechos humanos asegurarse de que estas protecciones fundamentales se hacen respetar. Legisladores, jueces y ciudadanos por igual pueden cumplir su papel para asegurarse de que internet apoya «el caos y la cacofonía» de la democracia. La alternativa sería permitir que la libertad de expresión en internet termine cayendo en un olvido autorregulado.
Gracias a Joe McNamee y Chris Marsden por conversar conmigo sobre la autorregulación en internet.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Ian Brown es investigador senior en el Oxford Internet Institute (parte de la Universidad de Oxford). Desde 1998 ha sido consejero de diversas organizaciones: Privacy International, el Open Rights Group y FIPR y ha asesorado a Greenpeace y el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos
This article originally appeared in the spring 2010 issue of Index on Censorship magazine
Traducción de Arrate Hidalgo
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Brave new worlds” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2010%2F03%2Fbrave-new-words-2%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Our special report explores how the internet not only makes it possible for authoritarian regimes to monitor citizens’ activities as never before, but also makes censorship acceptable, and even respectable, in democracies.
With: Rebecca MacKinnon, Rafal Rohozinski, Andrei Soldatov[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89164″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/03/brave-new-words-2/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Apr 2018 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements, Turkey, Turkey Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet has a history of tangling with the country’s governments.
We, the undersigned freedom of expression and human rights organisations, strongly condemn last night’s guilty verdicts for staff and journalists of Cumhuriyet newspaper and note the harsh sentences for the defendants. The verdict further demonstrates that Turkey’s justice system and the rule of law is failing: this was a trial where the ‘crime’ was journalism and the only ‘evidence’ was journalistic activities.
While three Cumhuriyet staff were acquitted, all the remaining journalists and executives were handed sentences of between 2 years, 6 months and 8 years, 1 month. Time already served in pretrial detention will likely be taken into consideration, however all will still have jail terms to serve, and those with the harshest sentences would still have to serve approximately 5 years. Travel bans have been placed on all defendants, barring the three that were acquitted, in a further attempt to silence them in the international arena.
Several of our organisations have been present to monitor and record the proceedings since the first hearing in July 2017. The political nature of the trial was clear from the outset and continued throughout the trial. The initial indictment charged the defendants with a mixture of terrorism and employment related offenses. However, the evidence presented did not stand the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt of internationally recognizable crimes. The prosecution presented alleged changes to the editorial policy of the paper and the content of articles as ‘evidence’ of support for armed terrorist groups. Furthermore, despite 17 months of proceedings, no credible evidence was produced by the prosecution during the trial.
The indictment, the pre-trial detention and the trial proceedings violated the human rights of the defendants, including the right to freedom of expression, the right to liberty and security and the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the symbolic nature of this trial against Turkey’s most prominent opposition newspaper undoubtedly has a chilling effect on the right to free expression much more broadly in Turkey and restricts the rights of the population to access information and diverse views.
“We observed violations of the right to a fair trial throughout the hearings. Despite the defence lawyers arguing that the basic requirements for a fair trial, such as an evidence-based indictment, were lacking these arbitrary sentences were handed down in order to attempt to intimidate one of the last remaining bastions of the independent press in Turkey,” said Turkey Advocacy Coordinator, Caroline Stockford.
The defence team repeatedly relied on the rights enshrined in the Turkish Constitution, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, demonstrating the importance of European human rights law to Turkey’s domestic legal system.
“‘Journalism is not a crime’ was declared again and again by the defendants and their lawyers and yet, despite the accusations containing no element of crime, the defendants served a collective total of 9.5 years in pretrial detention, and were found guilty at the end of an unfair trial,” said Jennifer Clement, President of PEN International.
Speedy rulings on legal cases of Turkish journalists, which include the Cumhuriyet cases of Murat Sabuncu and others and staff writer Ahmet Şık cases, pending before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are crucial. This is not only to redress the rights violations of the many journalists still languishing in detention, but also to defend the independence and impartiality of the judiciary itself in Turkey. The Cumhuriyet case and other prominent trials against journalists clearly demonstrate that the rule of law is totally compromised in Turkey then there is little hope for fair or speedy domestic judicial recourse for any defendant.
“The short three hours of deliberation by the judicial panel did not give the impression that the case was taken seriously. The 17 months during which there have been 7 hearings of this utterly groundless trial have damaged independent journalism in Turkey at a time when over 90% of the media is under the sway of the administration,” said Nora Wehofsits, Advocacy Officer, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF).
The guilty verdicts against the Cumhuriyet journalists and executives must be overturned and the persecution of all other journalists and others facing criminal charges merely for doing their job and peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression must be stopped. The authorities must immediately lift the state of emergency and return to the rule of law. The independence of the Turkish courts must be reinstated, enabling it to act as a check on the government, and hold it accountable for the serious human rights violations it has committed and continues to commit.
In light of the apparent breakdown of the rule of law and the fact that Turkish courts are evidently unable to deliver justice, we also call on the ECtHR to fulfil its role as the ultimate guardian of human rights in Europe, and to rule swiftly on the free expression cases currently pending before it and provide an effective remedy for the severe human rights violations taking place in Turkey.
Furthermore, we call on the institutions of the Council of Europe and its member states to remind Turkey of its international obligation to respect and protect human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, and to give appropriate priority to these issues in their relations with Turkey, both in bilateral and multilateral forums. In addition, the Council of Europe’s member states should provide adequate support to the ECtHR.
We also call on the European and International media to continue to support their Turkish colleagues and to give space to dissenting voices who are repressed in Turkey.
Amnesty International
Article 19
Articolo 21
Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
English PEN
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Freedom House
Global Editors Network
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Italian Press Federation
Norwegian PEN
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso – Transeuropa
Ossigeno per l’informazione
PEN America
PEN Belgium-Flanders
PEN Centre Germany
PEN Canada
PEN International
PEN Netherlands
Platform for Independent Journalism (P24)
Reporters without Borders
Research Institute on Turkey
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
WAN-ifra[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Apr 2018 | News, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Academic Sharo Ibrahim Garip
Even before the attempted coup in July 2016, the situation for academics within Turkey was drastically changing.
Marking a turning point for the country’s political environment, the failed July 2016 coup was an attempt to oust president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
In 2016 hundreds of academics were dismissed from their positions without notice, including sociologist Sharo Ibrahim Garip, who taught at Yuzuncu Yil University in the East Anatolian city of Van, Turkey.
A German national with Kurdish roots, Garip was dismissed from his position at the university in February 2016. Accused of spreading terrorist propaganda, he was arrested in January 2016 and placed under a two-year travel ban, after he signed a petition, along with 1,227 other academics, urging the Turkish government to end its crackdown on Kurdish communities in Turkey’s southeast.
The petition by Academics for Peace called for a peaceful situation to the conflict with the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a terrorist group seeking an independent Kurdish state within Turkey. Garip and the other academics denounced “war-like conditions” in the south-east and accused the government of an “extermination and expulsion policy” following the end of a ceasefire with the group and Turkish security forces in 2015. President Erdogan referred to them as “so-called intellectuals” and accused the signatories of “treason”.
Although there was no evidence Garip supported the group, he was still unable to leave the country or practice his profession, although his German citizenship prevented him from being detained pre-trial. Now working at the University of Essen-Duisburg, Garip spoke with Danyaal Yasin of Index on Censorship about his dismissal and the situation for academics following the coup.
Index: After you and hundreds of other academics were dismissed, what were your initial thoughts?
Sharo Ibrahim Garip: I was at the university. I received just a one-sentence decision from the university administration: “Mr Garip’s contract has been cancelled as the university no longer requires his services.” It was not surprising to me because I had already expected such an outcome. The history of the Turkish state is rife with instances of the elimination of political opposition, particularly critical thinkers such as academics and journalists. It was a planned action to eliminate critical thinkers from universities and the public sector. All those changes in the bureaucracy and public sector started before the military coup and continued following the civilian putsch. I could clearly observe the regime change in silence, but it was not possible to stop.
Index: Where were you when you found out? How did this affect you and your family?
Garip: I was detained on 15 January 2016 at the university in Van. I had to spend one night and one day in a jail cell of the special anti-terror unit of the police. I realised that I was a hostage from the beginning. I was threatened and humiliated during my interrogation. My family (who live mostly in Norway and Austria) was extremely concerned for my life. They still recall the events of the 1990s in Turkey, when many people were jailed/tortured or murdered, including the well-known cases of Hrant Dink and Tahir Elci, as well as many other intellectuals. The signatories have also been publicly exposed in the press and social media by government supporters and nationalists, leading to fears of reprisals from a mafia boss who declared that they will “spill the blood” of the signatories.
Index: What was the most difficult part?
Garip: I was removed from my academic position at Yuzuncu Yil (One Hundredth Year) University in Van in February 2016 because I had signed the petition by Academics for Peace, calling on the Turkish government to pursue a peaceful approach in its conflict with the Kurds, and in order to further punish me, the government forbade me to leave the country. I experienced a kind of structural violence, to live in Turkey without a job, health insurance, or a home. I shared a flat with friends for a while. I was trying to survive under very difficult conditions. I also experienced psychological violence. For example, all my phone calls were tapped and I was under regular surveillance. These had a very deep psychological effect on me. I didn’t want to meet with friends because I was constantly afraid of being attacked, imprisoned, killed, or tortured.
Under such circumstances is almost impossible to teach or produce any kind of academic work, write articles, do research, and so on.
It was painful to observe a country sink into political disaster again. Escalation of tensions, political collapse, and the war go back to the 90s, with civil war, political murders, missing people, bombing attacks on peaceful gatherings and meetings. It is also difficult to accept that at the moment approximately 70,000 students are in prison. One of my best students (who is only 22 years old) has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Index: Did you have to conceal your Kurdish heritage when studying or teaching?
Garip: No, I have never concealed my heritage. On the contrary, I disclosed my Kurdish heritage from the first day of teaching at the university in Van. Every day I talked to my students first in Kurdish and then continued in Turkish or sometimes in English. I arranged a Kurdish language course for sociology students as well. Kurds in Turkey have been assimilated for many years, a humiliating experience. Most Kurdish students have been psychologically damaged/traumatised by the violence perpetrated by the Turkish government. It was important to me to give my students a feeling of self-worth. This enabled me to establish a foundation of trust with my students, something not many other academics did.
Index: Why do you think academics are being brought to trial? What is the government’s goal?
Garip: It should be mentioned that Turkey has never, since its inception in 1921 until today, been a truly democratic country. Neither academic freedom nor freedom of speech has ever truly existed. The Turkish government has always thought of academics as well-paid public servants, a position which enjoys great privilege. Most Turkish academics have generally been loyal to the state and supported the official ideology. The petition for peace represented the first time that academics showed disloyalty to the state ideology, especially with regard to the Kurdish issue. For an authoritarian regime, such criticism was simply not acceptable. In this way, the government will punish academics. Turkey now appears to be inclined to go from an authoritarian regime to a totalitarian one. All undemocratic regimes try to maintain total control over society (the consolidation of institutional powers such as the NS regime). The masses must be repressed, and the media and intellectuals must be silenced and browbeaten. This is the goal of the government, which is why academics have been brought to trial. The academics have been punished in a number of different yet effective ways: dismissal, foreign travel bans, disciplinary processes.
Index: What has been the biggest change for academics in the country since the attempted coup?
Garip: The universities, schools, media, judiciary, and also parliament are now under the total control of the government. In particular, schools, the media, and universities have been shaped by a new ideology, which is both religious and nationalist. Many academics have been dismissed; more than 150,000 people in the public sector have lost their jobs. In the wake of the civilian putsch, 40,000 teachers, 8,247 academics, and 4,000 prosecutors and judges have been dismissed.
At universities, cultural events and demonstrations are forbidden. Students are not allowed to choose topics for their master or doctoral studies. At the moment four academics are in prison and another 15 academics and I have been sentenced to one year and three months in prison. Academics in Turkey are trying to survive; many of them live in very poor conditions. They have come up with new ideas such as establishing houses of culture or academies on the street. It is important to mention that academics and intellectuals all over the world, including Judith Butler, Etienne Balibar, and many other prominent academics have supported academics in Turkey. The quality of education is declining rapidly because many well-educated professors and instructors are leaving Turkey.
Index: Was there backlash from other academics when the petition came out?
Garip: Yes, at first. After the petition for peace came out, a petition titled “We support our government against terrorism” was signed by 5,000 academics. Some colleagues at the university definitely distanced themselves from me. The reason for this was partly ideological and partly out of fear. However, some academics supported me, as did most of my students.
Index: Do you feel the current climate will ever improve within the country?
Garip: I don’t like to be completely pessimistic but it is very difficult to expect much change within a short period. Possibly the situation may improve over the long term. At the moment we are confronted with a regime change and a government acting in desperation. Turkish society is extremely polarised and the political climate embittered. Structures within the government have been almost completely stripped down. It will be not easy to shift society from an authoritarian structure to a democratic one. We cannot forget that half of Turkey wants a secular and democratic government.
Index: You are now based in Germany – how does it feel to teach again?
Garip: It is wonderful. Here I enjoy a climate of freedom with my students. As I stated above, I have academic freedom and freedom of speech here which I wish my Turkish friends also had. While I was in Van, Turkey I invited many professors from London, Canada, and Germany to give lectures to my students via Skype. I wish to thank them for their excellent contributions. If I have the opportunity I would like to teach my students in Van from Germany via Skype as well.
Index: How has your work changed since leaving Turkey?
Garip: To be honest it was not easy to settle down. I had to start from the bottom again. But thanks to the social government and constitutional democracy in Germany, I was fortunate to receive help from many of my friends. I received a scholarship first for three months from the University of Essen-Duisburg and now have a fellowship from the University of Cologne. I am currently working on a research project. I have finished a new article and can publish it without fear. In short, I enjoy academic freedom and freedom of speech again. I wish all my friends in Turkey could enjoy such freedoms as well.
Index: Do you think you will ever return to Turkey?
Garip: Yes, of course I will. Travelling is an essential human right. I will visit my friends there or attend conferences and work on research projects.
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that “the intended coup was an attempt to protect the country’s democracy from president Recep Tayyip Erdogan”. This was updated on 24 April 2018[/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:1524653051961-3c4f18a5-613b-9″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
19 Apr 2018 | Awards, News
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Each year, the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards gala honours courageous champions who fight for free speech around the world.
Drawn from more than 400 crowdsourced nominations, this year’s nominees include artists, journalists, campaigners and digital activists tackling censorship and fighting for freedom of expression. Many of the 16 shortlisted are regularly targeted by authorities or by criminal and extremist groups for their work: some face regular death threats, others criminal prosecution.
The gala takes place on Thursday 19 April in London and will be hosted by stand-up poet Kate Fox.
We will be live tweeting throughout the evening on @IndexCensorship. Get involved in the conversation using the hashtag #IndexAwards2018. Listen LIVE beginning at 7:30pm BST on Resonance FM
Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards nominees 2018
Arts
Jamal Ali, Azerbaijan
Jamal Ali is an exiled rap musician with a history of challenging Azerbaijan’s authoritarian regime. Ali was one of many who took to the streets in 2012 to protest spending around the country’s hosting of the Eurovision song contest. Detained and tortured for his role in the protests, he went into exile after his life was threatened. Ali has persisted in challenging the government by releasing music critical of the country’s dynastic leadership. Following the release of one song, Ali’s mother was arrested in a senseless display of aggression. In provoking such a harsh response with a single action, Ali has highlighted the repressive nature of the regime and its ruthless desire to silence all dissent.
Full profile
Silvanos Mudzvova, Zimbabwe
Playwright and activist Silvanos Mudzvova uses performance to protest against the repressive regime of recently toppled President Robert Mugabe and to agitate for greater democracy and rights for his country’s LGBT community. Mudzvova specialises in performing so-called “hit-and-run” actions in public places to grab the attention of politicians and defy censorship laws, which forbid public performances without police clearance. His activism has seen him be traumatically abducted: taken at gunpoint from his home he was viciously tortured with electric shocks. Nonetheless, Mudzvova has resolved to finish what he’s started and has been vociferous about the recent political change in Zimbabwe.
Full profile
The Museum of Dissidence, Cuba
The Museum of Dissidence is a public art project and website celebrating dissent in Cuba. Set up in 2016 by acclaimed artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara and curator Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, their aim is to reclaim the word “dissident” and give it a positive meaning in Cuba. The museum organises radical public art projects and installations, concentrated in the poorer districts of Havana. Their fearlessness in opening dialogues and inhabiting public space has led to fierce repercussions: Nuñez was sacked from her job and Otero arrested and threatened with prison for being a “counter-revolutionary.” Despite this, they persist in challenging Cuba’s restrictions on expression.
Full profile
Abbad Yahya, Palestine
Abbad Yahya is a Palestinian author whose novel, Crime in Ramallah, was banned by the Palestinian Authority in 2017. The book tackles taboo issues such as homosexuality, fanaticism and religious extremism. It provoked a rapid official response and all copies of the book were seized. The public prosecutor issued a summons for questioning against Yahya while the distributor of the novel was arrested and interrogated. Yahya also received threats and copies of the book were burned. Despite this, he has spent the last year raising awareness of freedom of expression and the lives of young people in the West Bank and Gaza, particularly in relation to their sexuality.
Full profile
Campaigning
Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, Egypt
The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms is one of the few human rights organisations still operating in a country which has waged an orchestrated campaign against independent civil society groups. Egypt is becoming increasingly hostile to dissent, but ECRF continues to provide advocacy, legal support and campaign coordination, drawing attention to the many ongoing human rights abuses under the autocratic rule of President Abdel Fattah-el-Sisi. Their work has seen them subject to state harassment, their headquarters have been raided and staff members arrested. ECRF are committed to carrying on with their work regardless of the challenges.
Full profile
National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Kenya
The National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission is the only organisation in Kenya challenging and preventing LGBTI discrimination through the country’s courts. Even though homosexuality isn’t illegal in Kenya, homosexual acts are. Homophobia is commonplace and men who have sex with men can be punished by up to 14 years in prison, and while no specific laws relate to women, former Prime Minister Raila Odinga has said lesbians should also be imprisoned. NGLHRC has had an impact by successfully lobbying MPs to scrap a proposed anti-homosexuality bill and winning agreement from the Kenya Medical Association to stop forced anal examination of clients.
Full profile
Open Stadiums, Iran
The women behind Open Stadiums risk their lives to assert a woman’s right to attend public sporting events in Iran. The campaign challenges the country’s political and religious regime, and engages women in an issue many human rights activists have previously thought unimportant. Iranian women face many restrictions on using public space. Open Stadiums has generated broad support for their cause in and out of the country. As a result, MPs and people in power are beginning to talk about women’s rights to attend sporting events in a way that would have been taboo before.
Full profile
Team 29, Russia
Team 29 is an association of lawyers and journalists that defends those targeted by the state for exercising their right to freedom of speech in Russia. It is crucial work in a climate where hundreds of civil society organisations have been forced to close and where increasingly tight restrictions have been placed on public protest and political dissent since mass demonstrations rocked Russia in 2012. Team 29 conducts about 50 court cases annually, many involving accusations of high treason. Aside from litigation, they offer legal guides for activists and advice on what to do when summoned by state security for interrogation.
Full profile
Digital Activism
Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan
In late 2016, the Digital Rights Foundation established a cyber-harassment helpline that supported more than a thousand women in its first year of operation alone. Women make up only about a quarter of the online population in Pakistan but routinely face intense bullying including the use of revenge porn, blackmail, and other kinds of harassment. Often afraid to report how badly they are treated, women react by withdrawing from online spaces. To counter this, DRF’s Cyber Harassment Helpline team includes a qualified psychologist, digital security expert, and trained lawyer, all of whom provide specialised assistance.
Full profile
Fereshteh Forough, Afghanistan
Fereshteh Forough is the founder and executive director of Code to Inspire, a coding school for girls in Afghanistan. Founded in 2015, this innovative project helps women and girls learn computer programming with the aim of tapping into commercial opportunities online and fostering economic independence in a country that remains a highly patriarchal and conservative society. Forough believes that with programming skills, an internet connection and using bitcoin for currency, Afghan women can not only create wealth but challenge gender roles and gain independence.
Full profile
Habari RDC, Congo
Launched in 2016, Habari RDC is a collective of more than 100 young Congolese bloggers and web activists, who use Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to give voice to the opinions of young people from all over the Democratic Republic of Congo. Their site posts stories and cartoons about politics, but it also covers football, the arts and subjects such as domestic violence, child exploitation, the female orgasm and sexual harassment at work. Habari RDC offers a distinctive collection of funny, angry and modern Congolese voices, who are demanding to be heard.
Full profile
Mèdia.cat, Spain
Mèdia.cat is a Catalan website devoted to highlighting media freedom violations and investigating under-reported stories. Unique in Spain, it was a particularly significant player in 2017 when the disputed independence referendum brought issues of censorship and the impartiality of news under the spotlight. The website provides an online platform that systematically catalogues censorship perpetrated in the region. Its map on censorship offers a way for journalists to report on abuses they have personally suffered.
Journalism
Avispa Midia, Mexico
Avispa Midia is an independent online magazine that prides itself on its use of multimedia techniques to bring alive the political, economic and social worlds of Mexico and Latin America. It specialises in investigations into organised crime and the paramilitaries behind mining mega-projects, hydroelectric dams and the wind and oil industry. Many of Avispa’s reports in the last 12 months have been focused on Mexico and Central America, where the media group has helped indigenous and marginalised communities report on their own stories through audio and video training.
Wendy Funes, Honduras
Wendy Funes is an investigative journalist from Honduras who regularly risks her life for her right to report on what is happening in the country, an extremely harsh environment for reporters. Two journalists were murdered in 2017 and her father and friends are among those who have met violent deaths in the country – killings for which no one has ever been brought to justice. Funes meets these challenges with creativity and determination. For one article she had her own death certificate issued to highlight corruption. Funes also writes about violence against women, a huge problem in Honduras where one woman is killed every 16 hours.
MuckRock, United States
MuckRock is a non-profit news site used by journalists, activists and members of the public to request and share US government documents in pursuit of more transparency. MuckRock has shed light on government surveillance, censorship and police militarisation among other issues. MuckRock produces its own reporting, and helps others learn more about requesting information. Last year the site produced a Freedom of Information Act 4 Kidz lesson plan to help educators to start discussions about government transparency. Since then, they have expanded their reach to Canada. The organisation hopes to continue increasing their impact by putting transparency tools in the hands of journalists, researchers and ordinary citizens.
Novosti, Croatia
Novosti is a weekly Serbian-language magazine in Croatia. Although fully funded as a Serb minority publication by the Serbian National Council, it deals with a whole range of topics, not only those directly related to the minority status of Croatian Serbs. In the past year, the outlet’s journalists have faced attacks and death threats mainly from the ultra-conservative far-right. For its reporting, the staff of Novosti have been met with protest under the windows of the magazine’s offices shouting fascist slogans and anti-Serbian insults, and told they would end up killed like Charlie Hebdo journalists. Despite the pressure, the weekly persists in writing the truth and defending freedom of 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:1524073803130-58a2be32-5f5a-7″ taxonomies=”8935″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
