Letter: Free Hossein Derakhshan
A letter to the head of the Iranian judiciary, from Index on Censorship, PEN Canada, Article 19, Committee to Protect Journalists, and Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
(more…)
Margaret Atwood, Rupert Murdoch and Index
“Dear Sun Readers” begins Atwood’s pithy response to the recent controversy surrounding her signing a stop Fox News North petition that’s aiming to try and keep the right-wing television station off the air in Canada. Atwood is objecting to the way the channel will be funded and the government’s involvement. Her involvement sparked a debate on Twitter with conservative blogger Stephen Taylor and Toronto Sun Media’s Ottawa bureau chief, David Akin. During the Twitter spat, the men accused Atwood of calling the Sun an advocate of hate speech since the right-wing news channel is proposed by Sun Media. Akin tweeted:
So disappointing you would put your name to what is an anti-free speech movement. You’re smarter than that.
However, Atwood was quick to reply with:
“Free speech does not mean under-the-carpet deals that would force people to pay for Fox out of cable fees.”
After clearing any confusion and allegations made by the Sun about the Avaaz petition with spiffy ‘Allegation’ and ‘Fact’ statements, Atwood reiterates what the petition is about.
“As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud CRTC’s refusal to allow a new ‘Fox News North’ channel to be funded from our cable fees. We urge Mr. Von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada’s democratic traditions, and call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter.”
And she adds in subtle caps lock:
“THE VERBS ARE “APPLAUD”, “URGE” AND “CALL ON” NOT “BAN”, “SUPPRESS” AND “CENSOR.”
She mentions her views on censorship, underscoring the use of Twitter as a mode of free expression while name-dropped us too:
“AM I A PROPONENT OF “CENSORSHIP”?
Nope. Read the petition again.
Now Konrad von Finckenstein has said he isn’t under pressure (unlike his fired CRTC deputy), and will judge Application # 2 on its merits. Good!
REAL CENSORSHIP INCLUDES
Book burning, murdering, jailing and exiling writers, and shutting down newspapers, publishers, and TV stations. If you are against this, support PEN International and Index on Censorship.
Calling the Avaaz petition “censorship” is beyond cheap.
IS IT “CENSORSHIP” TO BLOCK TROLLS ON TWITTER?
No, and it’s not “censorship” to send back hate mail unopened and refuse material for your own blog, either.
Anyone can vent on their own Twitter or blog. And anyone can sign a petition to express their views.”
The latest update on the Avaaz petition states that over 80,000 people have signed it, over $110,000 has been donated to meet legal threats and Kory Teneycke, PM Harper’s former chief spokesman resigned on 15 September.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing is on Sun TV News will begin on 19 November in Gatineau, Quebec.
Margaret Atwood features in the next issue of Index on Censorship magazine.
"Would you want your wives and Taliban to read this?"
English PEN director Jonathan Heawood has an excellent piece in the Independent today on the libel case against Bookseller of Kabul author Åsne Seierstad.
Jonathan wonders if this sets a worrying precedent on the use of real people in literature:
What would it mean for literature if all characters based on real people were removed from the record? No Buck Mulligan in Ulysses; no Sarah in The End of the Affair; no Casaubon in Middlemarch; no Zelda in Tender is the Night; no Mrs Jellyby in Bleak House; no Anthony Blanche in Brideshead Revisited. Ottoline Morrell was cruelly satirised in both Aldous Huxley’s Crome Yellow and DH Lawrence’s Women in Love. Christopher Robin Milne hated living with the memory of his father’s classic books about a little boy and his teddy bear. Real people are scooped up by writers all the time. Literature does not respect the boundary between public and private; in fact, it is all about overstepping that mark.
There’s also the question of whether an author should be held responsible for the reaction, or potential reaction, of an audience (or potential audience).
That’s not to say that Seierstad has not broken an unwritten code of hospitality, or that the Rais family has not faced problems as a result of the book’s publication. Although Rais himself continues to operate a successful business out of Kabul, his first wife has sought asylum in Canada and other members of the family are now living in Pakistan. But is this discrepancy in the fates of the male and female members of the family the fault of a Norwegian journalist – or Afghan society? Is it appropriate for a Norwegian court to punish the messenger? Is a court of law the place to determine how a book treats the “honour” of an entire society?
Wikileaks publishes over 90,000 US war files
On Sunday (25 July) whistleblower website Wikileaks made public over 90,000 classified US military files on the war in Afghanistan, making it one of the biggest leaks in US history. The documents give a real time account of the conflict between January 2004 and December 2009 from the perspective of US personnel. Amongst other things they reveal that coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, that a secret “black” unit exists to kill or capture Taliban leaders without trial and that NATO officers fear Iranian and Pakistani intelligence are providing support for insurgents. The documents were released to the Guardian, New York Times and German magazine Der Spiegel for analysis several weeks ago and whilst Wikileaks did impose a publishing embargo until July 25, they did not influence how the news reports were formulated and did not reveal the source of the leak to the news organisations. The White House has not disputed the accuracy of the reports but “strongly condemned” the disclosure, believing that it could “threaten national security”.