Statement of support for Ukraine

We, the undersigned organisations, stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, but particularly Ukrainian journalists who now find themselves at the frontlines of a large-scale European war.

We unequivocally condemn the violence and aggression that puts thousands of our colleagues all over Ukraine in grave danger.

We call on the international community to provide any possible assistance to those who are taking on the brave role of reporting from the war zone that is now Ukraine. 

We condemn the physical violence, the cyberattacks, disinformation and all other weapons employed by the aggressor against the free and democratic Ukrainian press. 

We also stand in solidarity with independent Russian media who continue to report the truth in unprecedented conditions.

Join the statement of support for Ukraine by signing it here

#Журналісти_Важливі

Signed: 

  1. Justice for Journalists Foundation 
  2. Index on Censorship
  3. International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech “Adil Soz” 
  4. International Media Support (IMS)
  5. Yerevan Press Club 
  6. Turkmen.news 
  7. Free Press Unlimited
  8. Human Rights Center “Viasna”
  9. Albanian Helsinki Committee
  10. Media Rights Group, Azerbaijan 
  11. European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
  12. Association of European Journalists
  13. School of Peacemaking and Media Technology in Central Asia 
  14. Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan
  15. Reporters Without Borders, RSF
  16. Association of Independent Press of Moldova, API 
  17. Public Association “Dignity”, Kazakhstan
  18. PEN International 
  19. Human Rights House Foundation, Norway
  20. IFEX
  21. UNITED for Intercultural Action
  22. Human Rights House Yerevan
  23. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor, Armenia
  24. Rafto Foundation for Human Rights, Norway
  25. Society of Journalists, Warsaw
  26. The Swedish OSCE-network
  27. Hungarian Helsinki Committee 
  28. Legal policy research centre, Kazakhstan
  29. Public Foundation Notabene – Tajikistan 
  30. HR NGO “Citizens’ Watch – St. Petersburg, Russia
  31. English PEN
  32. Public organization “Dawn” – Tajikistan
  33. International Press Institute (IPI)
  34. The Union of Journalists of Kazakhstan 
  35. ARTICLE 19
  36. Human Rights House Tbilisi
  37. Rights Georgia
  38. Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center, Azerbaijan
  39. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  40. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
  41. Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)
  42. European Federation of Journalists
  43. Social Media Development Center, Georgia
  44. Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia
  45. OBC Transeuropa
  46. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
  47. Journalists Union YENI NESIL, Azerbaijan
  48. Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) , Istanbul
  49. Baku Press Club 
  50. Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development
  51. Union Sapari
  52. The Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)
  53. Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, Armenia 
  54. FEDERATIA SINDICATELOR DIN SOCIETATEA ROMANA DE RADIODIFUZIUNE, Bucharest, ROMANIA 
  55. CD FILMS (FRANCE)
  56. CFDT-Journalistes
  57. Belarusian Association of Journalists 
  58. SafeJournalists network
  59. Association of Journalists of Kosovo
  60. Association of Journalists of Macedonia
  61. BH Journalists Association
  62. Croatian Journalists’ Association
  63. Independent Journalists Association of Serbia
  64. Trade Union of Media of Montenegro
  65. Analytical Center for Central Asia (ACCA)
  66. Trade Union of Croatian Journalists 
  67. European Press Prize
  68. Ethical Journalism Network
  69. European Journalism Centre 
  70. Slovene Association of Journalists
  71. Investigative Studios
  72. PEN Belarus
  73. Public Media Alliance (PMA)
  74. Estonian Association of Journalists
  75. Federación de Sindicatos de Periodistas (FeSP) (Spain)
  76. DJV, German Journalist Federation  
  77. Free Russia Foundation   
  78. Association for Human Rights in Central Asia – AHRCA 
  79. “Human Rights Consulting Group” Public Foundation, Kazakhstan
  80. Committee to Protect Journalists
  81. Ski Club of International Journalists (SCIJ)
  82. Women In Journalism Institute, Canada – associate of CFWIJ
  83. Romanian Trade Union of Journalists MediaSind
  84. Romanian Federation Culture and Mass-Media FAIR, MediaSind
  85. New Generation of Human Rights Defenders Coalition, Kazakhstan
  86. Coalition for the Security and Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Activists, Kazakhstan
  87. Legal policy Research Centre, Kazakhstan 
  88. Eurasian Digital Foundation, Kazakhstan
  89. Legal Analysis and Research Public Union, Azerbaijan
  90. German Journalists Union
  91. Digital Rights Expert Group, Kazakhstan
  92. Bella Fox, LRT/Bellarus Media, Lithuania
  93. Syndicat national des journalistes CGT (SNJ-CGT), France
  94. Karin Wenk, Editor in Chief Menschen Machen Medien
  95. Press Emblem Campaign 
  96. Federacion de Servicios, Consumo y Movilidad (FeSMC) – UGT (Spain)   
  97. Sindicato dos Jornalistas, Portugal
  98. International media project Август2020/August2020 (august2020.info), Belarus
  99. Independent Association of Georgian Journalists (journalist.ge)
  100. Independent Trade Union of Journalists and Media Workers, Macedonia
  101. Adam Hug, Director, Foreign Policy Centre
  102. Zlatko Herljević, Croatian journalist, lecturer of journalism at University VERN, Zagreb, Croatia
  103. Independent Journalists’ and Media Workers’ Union (JMWU), Russia
  104. The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
  105. Hungarian Press Union (HPU), Hungary
  106. Lithuanian Journalists Union
  107. National Union of Journalists UK & Ireland 
  108. Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (Italy)
  109. Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ) 
  110. Uzbek Forum for Human Rights
  111. Association of Journalists, Turkey
  112. Slovak Syndicate of Journalist, Slovakia
  113. GAMAG Europe (European Chapter of the Global Alliance for Media and Gender)
  114. Slovenian Union of Journalists (SNS)
  115. Federación de Asociaciones de Periodistas de España (FAPE)
  116. Syndicate of Journalists of Czech Republic
  117. 360 Degrees, Media outlet, North Macedonia
  118. Frontline, Skopje, North Macedonia
  119. Community Media Solutions (UK)
  120. The Norwegian Union of Journalists, Norway
  121. Rentgen Media (Kyrgyz Republic)
  122. Union of Journalists in Finland (UJF)
  123. Syndicat National des Journalistes (SNJ), France
  124. The Swedish Union of Journalists, Sweden
  125. Asociación Nacional de Informadores de la Salud. ANIS. España
  126. Association Générale des Journalistes professionnels de Belgique (AGJPB/AVBB)
  127. Macedonian Institute for Media (MIM), North Macedonia  
  128. Lithuanian Journalism Centre, Lithuania
  129. Club Internacional de Prensa (CIP), España
  130. Periodical and Electronic Press Union
  131. Fojo Media Institute, Sweden
  132. Mediacentar Sarajevo 
  133. Media Diversity Institute
  134. Impressum – les journalistes suisses
  135. Agrupación de Periodistas FSC-CCOO
  136. South East European Network for Profession­alization of Media (SEENPM)
  137. TGS, Turkey
  138. Investigative Journalism Center, Croatia
  139. Verband Albanischer Berufsjournalisten der Diaspora, Schweiz
  140. IlijašNet
  141. Journalists Union of Macedonia and Thrace (Greece)
  142. The Union of Journalists of Armenia (UJA) 
  143. Associació de Periodistes Europeus de Catalunya (APEC)
  144. International Association of Public Media Researchers (IAPMR)
  145. FREELENS e.V. – German Association of Photojournalists & Photographers
  146. LawTransform (CMI-UiB Centre on Law & Social Transformation, Bergen, Norway)
  147. Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication
  148. Platform for Independent Journalism (P24), Turkey
  149. Novi Sad School of Journalism (Serbia) 
  150. Col·legi de Periodistes de Catalunya (Catalunya)

Fifteen organisations condemn lawsuit against Forensic News, deeming it a SLAPP

The undersigned organisations express their serious concern at the legal proceedings, also known as SLAPPs, that have been brought against investigative journalist Scott Stedman, his US media company Forensic News, and three of his colleagues.

Between June 2019 and June 2020, Forensic News published six articles and a podcast about the business affairs of British-Israeli security consultant and businessman Walter Soriano, after he was summoned by the United States’ Senate Intelligence Committee. The Committee was reportedly interested in Soriano’s connections to several people of interest, including the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who had been a former business associate of Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The Forensic News team was sued by Soriano in July 2020, one month after they published their last article about him. Although the defendants are all based in the United States and Forensic News is incorporated in the state of California, the lawsuit has been brought in London. 

A total of five claims were made in relation to data protection, libel, misuse of private information, harassment, and malicious falsehoods. Two of the claims, harassment and malicious falsehoods, have since been dismissed.

“We believe that the lawsuit that has been brought against Forensic News is a SLAPP,” the undersigned organisations said. SLAPPs abuse the law in order to silence critical coverage on matters of public interest. Index on Censorship has filed a media freedom alert to the Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists.

“The case has many of the hallmarks of a SLAPP, including that Soriano is not only suing the news organisation, but also the four individual reporters. He also has lawsuits pending against investigative journalists in France and Israel, as well as against Twitter in Ireland,” the organisations said.

Due to the extremely expensive nature of mounting a legal defence in England and Wales, Forensic News is having to raise funds through an online crowdfunding campaign. The case is expected to go to trial before the end of 2022.

SIGNED:

Index on Censorship

Blueprint for Free Speech

The Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland (CFoIS)

Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)

The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

English PEN

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

IFEX

International Press Institute (IPI)

Justice for Journalists Foundation

Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project

Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

PEN International

Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Spotlight on Corruption

Will athletes risk the wrath of Beijing to stand up for human rights?

Athlete protest has been almost as common a feature of the Olympic Games as elite sporting achievement since its modern inception at the turn of the 20th century.

At the 1906 Games, Irish triple jumper Peter O’Connor protested his registration as a British athlete – Ireland did not have a national Olympic committee at the time – by scaling the flagpole during the award ceremony and waving an Irish flag.

The official recognition of the Games as a platform for protest happened in 1955 when then president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Avery Brundage wrote guidelines into the Olympic bylaws. These stated that Olympic host cities had to ensure “no political demonstrations will be held in the stadium or other sport grounds, or in the Olympic Village, during the Games, and that it is not the intention to use the Games for any other purpose than for the advancement of the Olympic Movement”.

This did not stop perhaps the best known of all Olympic protests – the Black Power demonstrations at the 1968 Mexico Olympics when American 200-metre athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their gloved hands in salute during the US national anthem.

Further changes to athletes’ rights to express themselves were codified in a 1975 update to the Olympic Charter in rule 55, which simply said, “Every kind of demonstration or propaganda, whether political, religious or racial, in the Olympic areas is forbidden”.

The IOC has since moved away from this total ban and now declares itself to be “fully supportive of freedom of expression”.

And yet the most recent version of the rule on athlete expression, now known as Rule 50, state that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. It does though allow for expressing views outside Olympic sites and venues or before and after the Games. Athletes are also permitted to express their views in press conferences, during interviews and through their own social media channels.

In 2020 IOC member Dick Pound wrote: “Everyone has the right to political opinion and the freedom to express such opinions. The IOC fully agrees with that principle and has made it absolutely clear that athletes remain free to express their opinions in press conferences, in media interviews and on social media. But, in a free society, rights may come with certain limitations. Rule 50 restricts the occasions and places for the exercise of such rights. It does not impinge on the rights themselves.”

Athletes recognised just how much of a platform the games give them to express themselves, particularly with the global, 24-hour coverage afforded to it in modern times. As a result, they’ve always pushed back against bans.  For example, at the delayed 2020 Tokyo Olympics, many athletes and teams took the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement within Olympic venues.

So what can we expect from Beijing?

When China last hosted the Olympics in Beijing in 2008, it was a dramatically different country. One continuity was the human rights situation and there were protests organised by activists about human rights abuses in Tibet during those Games. Athletes however kept quiet.

A huge amount has changed in the 14 years since the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Athletes may feel very tempted to speak out. The wider world has been made aware of the Uyghur genocide, involving sterilisation, forced education in detention centres, the disappearance of activists and threats around the world against those who do speak out on the atrocities.

China has also cracked down in Hong Kong, effectively ending the one country, two systems policy. It has introduced the national security law, closed down independent media outlets and jailed political opponents.

Meanwhile, its other abuses – such as those in Tibet – have not gone away. Nor has concern over Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai, who disappeared late last year after she accused a top official of sexual misconduct.

At the Australian Open in January, athletes did use their platform to speak out about Peng Shuai. It would stand to reason the same would happen in Beijing. And yet China is not Australia.

While the rules governing freedom of expression at the Games have been loosened in the wake of athlete protests, Chinese officials have done little to ease concerns over athletes expressing themselves in Beijing. In mid-January, the deputy director of the Beijing organising committee Yang Shu said that “Any expression that is in line with the Olympic spirit I’m sure will be protected.” She then added, “Any behaviour or speech that is against the Olympic spirit, especially against the Chinese laws and regulations, are also subject to certain punishment.”

Basically, speak out and risk prison. It’s a high price to pay.

Then there’s the question of technology. Unlike 2008 when social media was in its infancy, China will be very worried about the potential for protest to reach a much wider audience than before. Anyone making comments on social media from inside the country will be required to communicate with the world through Chinese telecoms companies.

In December, VOA News reported that China has committed to switch off its Great Firewall for athletes and accredited media in the Olympic Village, competition and noncompetition venues, and contracted media hotels.

Just because the Firewall is being relaxed does not mean what athletes say over social media is not being monitored.

One particular concern for athletes at the Games is the requirement to download an app called MY2022 before arriving in China. The app is ostensibly there to maintain a closed loop system relating to Covid measures. However, researchers at Canada’s Citizen Lab says the app is not secure, leading a number of national Olympic committees, including the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, to advise their athletes to leave their personal devices at home.

In a statement shared with athletes, Canada’s national committee wrote, “We’ve reminded all Team Canada members that the Olympic Games present a unique opportunity for cybercrime and recommended that they be extra diligent at Games, including considering leaving personal devices at home, limiting personal information stored on devices brought to the Games, and to practice good cyber-hygiene at all times.”

The app also has a number of other features beyond health, such as AI-powered translation and weather, and real-time messaging and audio. Citizen Lab says it also includes features that allow users to report “politically sensitive” content while the Android version includes a censorship keyword list.

The organisation said, “We discovered a file named illegalwords.txt which contains a list of 2,442 keywords generally considered politically sensitive in China. However, despite its inclusion in the app, we were unable to find any functionality where these keywords were used to perform censorship. It is unclear whether this keyword list is entirely inactive, and, if so, whether the list is inactive intentionally.”

The list includes terms such as Xi Jinping, Tiananmen riot, Dalai Lama, Xinjiang and forced demolition. Citizen Lab says that many of the terms are in Uyghur or Tibetan scripts, something that is “not common” in other censored apps such as WeChat and YY.

It is highly likely that one or more principled athletes will use the Beijing Games to make a stand over Xinjiang, Tibet or Hong Kong. The question is whether, with the world watching, China will dare to take them to task.

CCP censorship extends well beyond the Olympic Games, including the targeting of Chinese minorities overseas. Index has investigated the extent to which the Chinese government is using its technological and economic leverage, combined with cultural and diplomatic networks, to intimidate, silence, and discredit Uyghurs in Europe. The report – China’s Long Arm: How Uyghurs are being Silenced in Europe – will be published on 10 February 2022. 

Get a free ticket to the launch event here, titled Banned By Beijing: How can Europe stand up for Uyghurs? After the event, check out our website’s Banned By Beijing page to read the report.”

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK