11 Feb 2015 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Statements, mobile, News, Statements
In January, Index on Censorship reported on the beginning of the trial of human rights activist Rasul Jafarov, who is being tried on spurious charges. The Azerbaijani embassy has written to Index on Censorship responding to that article. This is the Index response to the embassy.
Dear Ambassador Tahir Taghizadeh,
Thank you for your letter in response to our report on the beginning of the trial of human rights and democracy activist Rasul Jafarov.
In your letter, you wrote:
“In my country, human rights and fundamental freedoms are ensured in full compliance with the national and international commitments that Azerbaijan has subscribed to. No one is persecuted for his/her political views and activities as proved by Azerbaijan’s vibrant political process and free and diverse media.”
We beg to differ with your point of view.
Azerbaijan’s record on human rights and a free press has been discussed with great concern at the international level many times in recent years.
In March 2012, Index on Censorship joined with Article 19, Human Rights House Foundation, International Federation of Journalists, Media Diversity Institute, Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Reporters Without Borders and World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers to co-produce Running Scared: Azerbaijan’s Silenced Voices. The report opened with this stark warning: “The current state of freedom of expression in Azerbaijan is alarming, as the cycle of violence against journalists and impunity for their attackers continues; journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and political and civic activists face increasing pressure, harassment and interference from the authorities; and many who express opinions critical of the authorities – whether through traditional media, online, or by taking to the streets in protest – find themselves imprisoned or otherwise targeted in retaliation.”
In December 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a monitoring report that included the comments that the “situation with regard to basic freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association is preoccupying. The committee expresses its alarm at reports by human rights defenders and domestic and international NGOs about the alleged use of so-called fabricated charges against activists and journalists. The combination of the restrictive implementation of freedoms with unfair trials and the undue influence of the executive results in the systemic detention of people who may be considered prisoners of conscience. Alleged cases of torture and other forms of ill-treatment at police stations, as well as the impunity of perpetrators, raise major concern”.
In April 2013, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations work group issued its report from Azerbaijan’s universal periodic review. Among the recommendations were suggestions for improvements on human rights and more specifically freedom of expression:
• Ensure the full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression in line with country’s international commitments (Slovakia)
• Guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly particularly by allowing peaceful demonstrations in line with the obligations stemming from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Switzerland);
• Put in place additional and fitting measures to ensure respect for freedom of expression and of the media (Cyprus);
• Ensure that Azerbaijani media regulations uphold diversity among media outlets, as per international standards and best practices (Cyprus);
• Expand media freedoms across print, online and, in particular, broadcast platforms, notably by ending its ban on foreign broadcasts on FM radio frequencies and eliminating new restrictions on the broadcast of foreign language television programs (Canada);
• Take effective measures to ensure the full realization of the right to freedom of expression, including on the Internet, of assembly and of association as well as to ensure that all human rights defenders, lawyers and other civil society actors are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear or threat of reprisal (Czech Republic);
• Ensure that human rights defenders, lawyers and other civil society actors are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear or threat of reprisal, obstruction or legal and administrative harassment (Sweden);
• Put an end to direct and indirect restrictions on freedom of expression and take effective measures to ensure the full realization of the right to freedom of expression and of assembly (Poland);
• Ensure the full exercise of freedom of expression for independent journalists and media, inter alia, by taking into due consideration the recommendations of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (Italy);
• Ensure that journalists and media workers are able to work freely and without governmental intimidation (Germany);
• Ensure that journalists and writers may work freely and without fear of retribution for expressing critical opinions or covering topics that the Government may find sensitive (Slovenia);
• Protect and guarantee freedoms of expression and association in order to enable human rights defenders, NGOs and other civil society actors to be able to conduct their activities without fear of being endangered or harassed (France);
• Strengthen measures to guarantee a safe and conducive environment for the free expression of civil society (Chile);
• Remove all legislative and practical obstacles for the registration, funding and work of NGOs in Azerbaijan (Norway);
• Ensure that all human rights violations against human rights defenders and journalists are investigated effectively and transparently, with perpetrators being promptly brought to justice, including pending unresolved cases requiring urgent attention (United Kingdom);
• Ensure prompt, transparent and impartial investigation and prosecution of all alleged attacks against independent journalists, ensuring that
the media workers do not face reprisals for their publications (Slovakia);
Though Azerbaijan has the modern legal framework in place to respond to these suggestions from the international community, the respect for the rule of law is sorely lacking.
In October 2013, Index on Censorship published Locking up free expression: Azerbaijan silences critical voices, which described the situation in your country in the run up to the presidential elections.
We wish that was the end of the story, that our insistence that Azerbaijan respect free of expression was based on outdated information or thoroughly implemented international recommendations.
But in 2014 the assault against journalists and human rights activists accelerated with detentions of well-respected individuals with international profiles and the temerity to speak some uncomfortable truths to the government of Azerbaijan.
These are just a few of the cases against journalists and human rights activists that we follow:
Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli
Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli — sentenced to 5.5 and 3.5 years respectively in May 2014 — are prominent human rights activists and founders of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre. They were arrested and jailed in 2013, following outspoken criticism of presidential elections in October 2013, despite international protests. Those are the same polls that invited election observers from the OSCE found lacking. On 29 September 2014, Mammadli was awarded the Václav Havel Award for Human Rights by the Council of Europe.
Arif and Leyla Yunus (Photo: HRHN)
Leyla Yunus — arrested 30 July 2014 — is the director of the Peace and Democracy Institute, which among other things works to establish rule of law in Azerbaijan. She has been charged with state treason (article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan), large-scale fraud (article 178.3.2), forgery (article 320), tax evasion (article 213), and illegal business (article 192). On 18 February, her pre-trial detention was extended for another five months. Her husband Arif Yunus was arrested 5 August 2014. Arif Yunus is facing charges of state treason and fraud. Both have had their initial three month pre-trial detentions extended.
Human rights and democracy activist Rasul Jafarov (Photo: Melody Patry)
Rasul Jafarov — arrested 2 August 2014 — one of the initiators and coordinators of the campaign “Sing for Democracy” and “The Art of Democracy”, advocated for the rights of political prisoners, actively participated in the International Platform “Civil Solidarity.” He is accused of: tax evasion (Article 192), illegal business (Article 213) and malpractice (Article 308). The charges carry a possible sentence of 12 years.
Lawyer Intigam Aliyev
Intigam Aliyev — arrested 8 August 2014 — is a human rights defender and a lawyer specialized in defending rights of citizens in the European Court of Human Rights. He is charged with Articles 213.1 (tax evasion), 308.2 (malpractice) и 192.2 (illegal business) of the Criminal Code. Index was heartened to hear that Aliyev was at least allowed to sit with his lawyers in court on Feb 3.
Journalist Seymur Hezi
Seymur Hezi — arrested 29 August 2014 — works for independent newspaper Azadliq and host of the news programme “Azerbaijan Hour”. He is a member of the opposition Popular Front Party. Index reported on January 29 that Hezi was sentenced to a five-year prison sentence on charges of “aggravated hooliganism” on 29 January.
Emin Huseynov, journalist and human rights defender, director of the Azerbaijani Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS)
Emin Huseynov — went into hiding in August 2014 — is an internationally recognised human rights defender and leader of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS). IRFS is the leading media rights organisation in Azerbaijan and one of the main partner organisations of the Human Rights House Network in the country. Huseynov was charged with tax evasion, illegal business and abuse of authority after he went into hiding at the Swiss embassy. Florian Irminger, head of advocacy at the Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), of which Index is a network member, called on Switzerland to continue to host Huseynov. “His location at the embassy is justified by the level of the repression in the country, the bogus charges brought against human rights defenders in Azerbaijan and the impossibility for them to defend themselves in court, due to the lack of independence of the judiciary and the harassment of their lawyers.”
Khadija Ismayilova
Khadija Ismayilova — arrested on 5 December — is an investigative journalist and radio host who is currently working for the Azerbaijani service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. She is a member of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. She was arrested under charges of incitement to suicide, a charge widely criticised by human rights organizations. Ismayilova is currently being supported by two petition campaigns by Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders. On 13 Feb, lawyer Fariz Namazly told Contact.az that new charges have been filed. According to him, Ismayilova is charged under the Article: 179.3.2 (large-scale embezzlement), 192.2.2 (illegal business), 213.1 (tax evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of power.) The charges carry a possible sentence of 12 years.
Award-winning newspaper Azadliq was forced to halt its print edition in July 2014 as its bank accounts were frozen. We reported on this in August 2014.
In September, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in your country.
In November, Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, called his autumn 2014 mission to Azerbaijan one of the most difficult of his tenure. He wrote, “In late October I was in Azerbaijan, the oil-rich country in the South Caucasus, which just finished holding the rotating chairmanship of the 47-member Council of Europe. Most countries chairing the organisation, which prides itself as the continent’s guardian of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, use their time at the helm to tout their democratic credentials. Azerbaijan will go down in history as the country that carried out an unprecedented crackdown on human rights defenders during its chairmanship.”
You mention in your letter that individuals are not being arrested for their human rights work but it seems an astonishing coincidence that all these prominent human rights defenders should all be guilty of such an array of financial crimes. And that brings us full circle to the present. Since we received your letter, there have been several developments that we would like to brief you on:
On 29 January 2015, a provisional resolution before the CoE called attention to the cases of investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova, human rights activist Emin Huseynov and the closure of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Further on in the resolution PACE was being asked to call on Azerbaijan to properly investigate the murders of journalists Elmar Huseynov (2005) and Rafiq Tagi (2011).
On 3 Feb, President Aliyev signed an amended media law that restricts press freedom by making it easier to shutter media outlets.
Just today, Reporters Without Borders released its World Press Freedom Index 2015, which places Azerbaijan at 162. That’s down 2 spots from last 2014.
We wish Azerbaijan’s commitment to a “free and diverse media” was more than just words and we will continue to report on these detentions – as we do globally – for as long as these words are not translated into action.
Best regards
Jodie Ginsberg
Chief Executive
Index on Censorship
2 Feb 2015 | Egypt, mobile, News
Peter Greste, Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and Baher Mohamed are three Al Jazeera journalists were among those sentenced to prison on terrorism charges.
As journalist Peter Greste returns to Australia to a hero’s welcome home, his two colleagues Canadian-Egyptian journalist Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and Egyptian journalist Baher Mohamed languish in an Egyptian prison.
The three Al Jazeera English journalists have spent more than 400 days in jail for no other crime than doing their work. In June 2014, Cairo court sentenced Greste and Fahmy to seven years in prison while Baher was handed down a ten-year sentence on the charges of “spreading false news and supporting a terrorist group.” Baher was given the harsher sentence for allegedly having in his possession an empty shell case that he had picked up at a protest site.
Analysts said that Greste’s abrupt deportation to his native Australia was the result of immense international pressure and a persistent international campaign for his release. The move followed the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 104 some months earlier, allowing foreign detainees to be deported for retrial in their own countries. The decree issued by President Abdel Fattah El Sisi in November 2014 came in response to widespread criticism of Egypt’s brutal security crackdown on dissent and the stifling of free expression in the country where four years earlier, opposition activists had taken to the streets to demand “Freedom, Bread and Social Justice.”
Former MP Mostafa Bakry had posted a message on his Twitter account on Saturday night (the day before Greste boarded a flight home via Cyprus) stating that the Australian journalist would be released the following day. On Sunday, Bakry followed up his earlier tweet with another message saying that journalist Mohamed Fahmy (Al Jazeera English Cairo Bureau Chief) would also be freed after having his Egyptian nationality revoked. Negad El Borei, Fahmy’s Defence Lawyer meanwhile, told the independent Al Masry El Youm newspaper that while it was necessary by law that Fahmy drop his Egyptian nationality if he wished to be deported to Canada, Fahmy had not decided to do that. A source close to the presidency also denied allegations that the jailed journalist had been granted amnesty, calling the rumour “baseless and unfounded.” Fahmy, has repeatedly denied in court that he has any links with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, insisting he was “a patriot” and “would never do anything to harm Egypt’s national security.
Meanwhile, in a letter addressed to President Abdel Fattah El Sisi on Sunday, Fahmy’s mother, Waffa Bassiouny, pleaded for her son’s release on grounds of ill health.
“As a mother and an Egyptian citizen, I appeal to you Mr. President to pardon my son,” she wrote, adding that “Fahmy is innocent and needs urgent medical treatment for Hepatitis C and a shoulder injury.”
Fahmy had suffered from a dislocated shoulder before his arrest and detention in December 2013 but the lack of treatment (despite his repeated pleas to the judge overseeing the case for medical care) has left him with a permanent disability in his right arm. El Sisi had earlier insisted that Egypt’s judiciary was “independent” adding that he could not influence judicial verdicts and would only be able to pardon the detainees once the legal process had been exhausted. On January 1, 2015, the court ordered a retrial for the three journalists but has not yet set a date for the new trial.
While Peter Greste’s deportation has raised hopes for the imminent release of Fahmy (who has dual citizenship), Egyptian producer Baher Mohamed’s sttuation is somewhat more precarious. His case has received far less media attention than his two high-profile colleagues simply because of the fact that he is solely Egyptian, a case that Rights Lawyer El Borei said “underlines the discrimination in Egyptian legislation against local detainees.”
Egyptian media which has aligned itself with the military-backed authorities since the ouster of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, has remained largely silent about the case of the three AJE journalists, (referred to by some media as the “Marriott-cell case”) save for denunciation by some media of Al Jazeera, accusing the Qatari-funded news network of complicity with the outlawed “terror group.” The network has been banned in Egypt since the overthrow of the Islamist President and had its offices ransacked by security forces several times before the imposition of the ban. Before their arrest and detention at the end of December, 2013, the three journalists had worked without valid credentials out of a makeshift studio in the Marriott Hotel in Zamalek.
In a telephone call on Monday (a day after Greste’s release), Jehan Rashed, Baher’s wife who gave birth to their third baby in August last year while her husband was locked up behind bars, decried the country’s discriminatory policies against native Egyptians.
“I know that the two ‘foreign’ journalists will walk free while Baher will be left to bear the brunt of this whole case. He is paying a heavy price for simply being an Egyptian,” she told Index.
She also complained that prominent TV talk show presenter Lamis El Hadidi had the night before referred to Greste and Fahmy by name on her show on the privately-owned satellite channel CBC but had said she was not sure if the third detainee was named Baher.
“This kind of attitude is typical of the discrimination in the country against one of their own,” she said, sounding distraught.
Egyptian journalist Khaled El Balshy meanwhile told Index that members of the Journalists Syndicate had called for an emergency meeting on Tuesday to discuss possible measures to pile pressure on the authorities for the release of 11 journalists currently behind bars in Egypt, including both Baher and Mohamed Fahmy.
“We had previously signed a petition for their release which was presented to the authorities,” El Balshy told Index by telephone. “We feel that it is now time to send the government another reminder,” he added.
El Balshy did not rule out organizing a rally outside the Syndicate in the coming days to press for the release of the journalists whom he said “should be out doing their work instead of being locked up.”
Egypt was listed among the top ten worst jailers of journalists in the world in an annual report published last December by the New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists, CPJ. According to the CPJ report, Egypt had “more than doubled the number of journalists behind bars to at least 12 in 2014, including the three AJE journalists.”
While Egyptian citizens and the country’s pro-government media is paying little attention to Baher Mohamed, he is not forgotten by the international community and the foreign media. In reporting Greste’s release on Sunday, several foreign journalists working in Egypt reminded their audience that Greste’s two colleagues “must not be forgotten” and that “the campaign for their release is far from over.”
The plea was echoed by Greste’s family which vowed to continue its campaign until Fahmy and Baher were also released.
At a press conference in Brisbane on Sunday (held before Peter’s arrival home), Peter’s brother Andrew Greste said, “We want to acknowledge that Peter’s colleagues are still in jail.” His father Juris Greste also said that he “felt deeply for those left behind.”
“Peter will not rest until his colleagues are freed,” said Andrew.
22 Dec 2014 | Europe and Central Asia, Magazine, News, Politics and Society, United Kingdom, Volume 43.04 Winter 2014
2015 marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. Index on Censorship magazine’s winter issue has a special report that examines all ways in which the document affected modern freedoms. Here John Crace kicks us off with a tongue-in-cheek trip through history
Call it a free for all. Call it an innate sense of fair play. Call it what you will, but the English had always had a way of making their feelings known to a monarch who got a bit above himself by hitting the country for too much money in taxes or losing overseas military campaigns or both. They rebelled. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t but it was the closest medieval England had to due process. Then came John, a king every bit as unloved – if not more so – as any of his predecessors; a ruler who had gone back on many of his promises and was doing his best to lose all England’s French possessions and all of a sudden the barons had a problem. There wasn’t any obvious candidate to replace him.
So instead of deposing him, they took him on by limiting his powers.
Kings never have much liked being told what to do and John was no exception. If he could have got out of cutting a deal with the barons he would have done. But even he understood that impoverishing the people he relied on to keep him in power hadn’t been the cleverest of moves, and so he reluctantly agreed to take part in the negotiations that led to the sealing of The articles of the Barons – later known as Magna Carta – at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. Which isn’t to say he didn’t kick and scream his way through them before agreeing to the 61 demands which were the bare minimum for his remaining in power. He did, though, keep his fingers cunningly crossed when the seal was being applied. As soon as the barons had left London, King John announced — with the Pope’s blessing — that he was having no more to do with it. The barons were outraged and went into open rebellion, though dysentery got to King John before they did and he died the following year. Don’t shit with the people, or the people shit with you. Or something like that.
With the original Magna Carta having lasted barely three months, there were some who reckoned they could have saved themselves a lot of time and effort by topping King John rather than negotiating with him. But wiser – or perhaps, more peaceful – counsel prevailed and its spirit has endured through various subsequent mutations – most notably the 1216 Charter, The Great Charter of 1225 and the Confirmation of Charters of 1297 and has widely come to be seen as the foundation stone of constitutional law, both in England and many countries around the world. It was the first time limitations had been formally placed on a monarch’s power and the rights of citizens to the due process of law and trial by jury had been affirmed. Well, not quite all citizens. When the various charters talked of the rights of Freemen, it didn’t mean everyone; far from it. Freemen just meant that small class of people, below the barons, who weren’t tied to land as serfs. The Brits have never liked to rush things. They like their revolutions to be orderly. The underclass would just have to wait.
Magna Carta and its derivative charters were never quite the symbols of enlightened noblesse oblige they are often held to be. The noblemen didn’t sit around earnestly thinking about how they could turn England into a communal paradise. What was the point of having fought and back-stabbed your way to the top only to give power away to the undeserving? The charters were matters of political expedience. The nobles needed the Freemen on their side in their face-off with the king and an extension of their rights was the bargaining chip to secure it. Benevolence never really entered the equation. Nor was Magna Carta ever really a legal constitutional framework. Even if King John hadn’t decided to ignore it within months, it would still have been virtually unenforceable as it had no statutory authority. It was more wish-list than law.
Ironically, though, it is Magna Carta’s weaknesses that have turned out to have guaranteed its survival. Over the centuries, Magna Carta has become the symbol of freedom rather than its guarantor as different generations have cherry-picked its clauses and interpreted them in their own way. While wars and poverty might have been the prime catalyst for the Peasant’s Revolt against King Richard II in 1381, it was Magna Carta to which the rebellion looked for its intellectual legitimacy. The Freemen were now seen to be free men; constitutional rights were no longer seen as residing in the few. The King and his court were outraged that the peasants had made such an elementary mistake as to mistake the implied capital F in Freemen for a small f and the leaders were executed for their illiteracy as much as their impudence.
Bit by bit, starting in 1829 with the section dealing with offences against a person, the clauses of Magna Carta were repealed such that by 1960 only three still survived. Some, such as those concerning “scutage” — a tax that allowed knights to buy out of military service — and fish weirs, had become outdated; others had already been superseded by later statutes. Two of those that remained related to the privileges of both the Church of England and the City of London — a telling insight into the priorities of the establishment. Those who still wonder, following the global financial collapse of 2008, why the bankers were allowed to get away with making up the rules to suit themselves need look no further than Magna Carta. The bankers had been used to getting away with it for the best of 800 years. You win some you lose some.
The survival of clause 39 of the original Magna Carta has been rather more significant for the rest of us. “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.” Or in layman’s terms, due process: the legal requirement of the state to recognise and respect all the legal rights of the individual. The guarantee of justice, fairness and liberty that not only underpins – well, most of the time – the UK’s constitutional framework, but those of many other countries as well.
Britain has no written constitution. Not because parliament has been too lazy to get round to drawing one up, but because one is already assumed to be in the lifeblood of every one living in Britain. Queen Mary may have had “Calais” written on her heart, but the rest of us all have “Magna Carta” inscribed there. It can be found on the inside of the left ventricle, for those of you who are interested in detail. Other countries haven’t been so trusting in the genetic inheritance of feudal England and have insisted on getting their constitutions down in non-fugitive ink.
That Magna Carta has also been the lodestone for the constitutions of so many other countries, most notably the USA, is less a sign of the global reach of democratic principles – much as that might resonate with romantic ideals of justice — than of the spread of British people and British imperial power. After the Mayflower arrived in what became the USA from Plymouth in 1620, the first settlers’ only reference point for the establishment of civil society was Magna Carta. The settlers had a lot of other things on their minds in the early years — most notably their own survival and the share price of British American Tobacco — and they hadn’t got time to dream up their own bespoke constitution. If they had, they might have come up with something that abolished slavery and gave equal rights to black people sometime before the 1960s. So they settled for an off-thepeg version of Magna Carta, with various US amendments. And some poor spelling. In 1687 William Penn published the first version of Magna Carta to be printed in America. By the time the fifth amendment — part of the bill of rights – was ratified four years after the original US constitution in 1791, Magna Carta had been enshrined in American law with “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
The fact that the American idea of Magna Carta was not one that would necessarily have been recognised in Britain was neither here nor there. For the Americans, the notion of the rights of a people to govern themselves was more than something that had been fought for over many centuries – a gradual taking back of power from an absolute ruler — that had been ratified on paper. They were fundamental rights that pre-existed any country and transcended national borders. And even if there was no one left alive on Earth, these rights would remain. They might as well have been handed down by God, though it’s probably just as well Adam hadn’t read the sections on the right to defend himself and bear arms. If he had shot the serpent, the whole history of the world might have been very different. As it is, when the Americans took on the British in the War of Independence, they weren’t fighting against a colonial overlord so much as for their basic rights to freedom.
The distinction is a subtle but important one. For though the more recent constitutions of former British colonies, such as Australia, India, Canada and New Zealand, more closely reflected the way Magna Carta was understood back in the mothership, those interpretations of it were still very much a product of their time. As a historical document, Magna Carta remains fixed in the 13th century: a practical solution to the problem of an iffy king. But as a concept it is a shifting, timeless expression of the democratic ideal. It can mean and explain anything. Up to and including that Britain always knows best.
Yet the appeal of Magna Carta endures and it remains the gold standard for democracy in any debate. Whatever side of it you happen to be on. British eurosceptics argue that the UK’s continuing membership of the European Union threatens the very parchment on which it was written; that Britain is being turned into a serf by a European despot. Pro Europeans argue that the EU does more than just enshrine the ideals of Magna Carta, it turns the most threatened elements of it into law.
Eight hundred years on, Magna Carta remains a moving target. Something to be aspired to but never truly attained. A highly combustible compound of idealism and pragmatism. Somehow, though, you can’t help feeling that King John and the feudal barons would have understood that. And approved.
This article is from the Winter 2014 issue of Index on Censorship magazine as 1215 and all that.
This article was originally posted on Dec 22, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
