14 Nov 2013 | Asia and Pacific, News
President Rajapaksa claims his hands are when it comes to free speech. (Image Chamila Karunarathne/Demotix)
A Channel 4 News team was yesterday barred from travelling to the north of Sri Lanka by a group of angry protesters blocking their train. The pro-government crowd claimed that the reporters were getting money from the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). The crew were eventually escorted out by the police.
Channel 4 News editor Ben De Pear was live tweeting the ordeal. “It seems it is mob rule in Sri Lanka, albeit orchestrated by the authorities to prevent free press access to the north of Sri Lanka,” he posted at the time.
Channel 4 has angered the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa with a series of documentaries and reports on the alleged of death of some 40,000 Tamils – the figured comes from the UN – in the last weeks of the country’s 30 year long civil war, which ended in May 2009. They have also covered subsequent allegations of human rights abuses like torture and disappearances, levelled at security forces. But De Pear tweeted Rajapaksa had said Sri Lanka is a free country, where you can “go anywhere”.
This comes on the day before the start of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the capital Colombo. The biannual summit has been marred by coverage of the continuing poor state of fundamental human rights in the country, with Commonwealth members like India and Canada boycotting in protest. Britain, however, will be attending, with Prime Minister David Cameron stating it is better to confront the country than isolate it. Unlike MPs from Australia and New Zealand on a human rights fact finding mission, who were on Sunday detained and deported, he will presumably be able to enter the country. And with human rights not even on agenda to be formally discussed during the meeting, there are a number of recent issues the Prime Minister can raise in his “serious questions” to President Rajapaksa.
While what has happened to Channel 4 is unacceptable, it is nothing compared to the conditions local journalists work under. Since the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge in 2009 and the disappearance of cartoonist and columnist Prageeth Eknelygoda in 2010 – neither properly investigated – the country’s media face ongoing repression under the Rajapaksa regime. While freedom of expression is protected in the constitution, little is done to protect it in practise. Intimidation is rife, with journalists attacked and beaten and printing presses destroyed. A recent example was the two-hour long raid on the home of editor and columnist Mandana Ismail Abeywickrema in August. She recently started a journalists’ trade union. Critical reporters have previously been labelled “traitors” by authorities, and at least 26 are currently in exile.
The regime also seems to have a problem with the right to free assembly and civil society gatherings. The vaguely worded 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act is often used in government crackdowns. Only yesterday, families of disappeared people were barred by the military traveling to a candlelight vigil at an alternative Commonwealth meeting organised by human rights groups in Colombo. One of the conveners of the Alternative People’s Forum, Dr Nimalka Fernando, which is boycotting all official Commonwealth events, was subject to on-air threats from the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation – a state owned radio station.
There is also the case of continuous allegations of torture and forced disappearances levelled at at government and security forces. A recent BBC report by Fergal Keane suggested that while repression has been taking place under successive governments, activists say the situation has worsened under the current regime. A priest who helps victims of torture in the country told the BBC “those who criticise or question the government are being silenced in a very brutal way”.
The government has denied all allegations of human rights abuses, with President Rajapaksa saying today that they ended the killing by defeating the Tamil Tigers. But with the Commonwealth “committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” leaders have a responsibility to hold the Sri Lankan government to account. Hopefully David Cameron’s questions will indeed be serious.
25 Oct 2013 | Digital Freedom
Last year’s Internet Governance Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan proved controversial due to the choice of host. This year’s event, in Bali, Indonesia was bound to be contentious, after Edward Snowden’s leaks on the US’s PRISM programme. PRISM and TEMPORA (the UK system of mass surveillance) were a lightening rod for general discontent from activists who feel an increasing sense of ill ease over the state of internet freedom. Many of the sessions were bad-tempered affairs with civil society rounding on the perceived complacency of government officials from democracies who refused to state their opposition to mass state surveillance in clear enough terms.
At an event hosted by the Global Network Initiative, Index on Censorship, andPakistan’s Centre for Social and Policy Analysis, a US government official was heckled by the audience when he attempted to justify PRISM as an anti-terrorism measure. Of particular concern for delegates was a sense that PRISM is now being used by less democratic and authoritarian states to justify their own surveillance systems. The Chinese were quick to point out the ‘double standards’ of the US at this workshop, following it with appalling doublespeak to gloss over their poor domestic record on human rights violations. A point I challenged them on in no uncertain terms.
Participants in the workshop from across the globe from Pakistan to South Africa stated their concern that a race to the bottom is beginning with new surveillance capacities being debated in countries such as Russia, New Zealand and the UK. Other areas of concern at the workshop included the increasing use of filters at ISP level (in particular in Indonesia where a significant number of ISPs are adopting filtering) and the pressure now felt by Telcos from states who are imposing burdensome requirements to filter content. One worrying prospect is that the ITU will succumb to a push to ensure Telcos do not distribute ‘blasphemous’ content which could lead to the full Balkanisation of the internet.
Although the outlook is bleak, civil society is pushing back at corporations and governments. Bytes for All in Pakistan has done impressive work in chronicling censored online content. A number of coalitions strengthened at the IGF with closer co-operation between international NGOs to take on mass state surveillance. This weekend, a number of US NGOs will rally in Washington DC against the PRISM programme with thousands expected to take to the streets. Index on Censorship’s #DontSpyOnMe petition of 7,000 signatures was this week sent to Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė, who currently hold the Presidency of the Council of the EU, and Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council. The EU heeded our calls to discuss mass surveillance at the Council of Ministers meeting – a big success. The pressure on corporations is being felt too, Telcos came under particular fire for their willingness to install surveillance equipment in their networks. Yet, many are beginning to speak publicly over the pressures they feel from states and the need for transparency so their users are at least aware of the surveillance they may be subject to and so can adjust their behaviour accordingly. Meanwhile, Google launched new tools to illustrate the threats the internet faces. The Digital Attack Map is a realtime website displays DDOS attacks and where they originate from – useful in tracking attacks on civil society websites from state-run or criminal botnets. Google also launched a project to provide free, secure web hosting for internet activists under attack.
One of the strengths of the IGF is the broadness of the workshop programme. From the challenges felt by the disabled online, minority rights online, through to bridging the ‘digital divide’ between the rich and poor both internationally and internally within even wealthier countries, the IGF covered a significant amount of ground. Yet, one of the big challenges to the IGF is how to engage a wider section of civil society. While the IGF was better attended by delegates from South-East Asia, fewer delegates from Europe and the Middle East were visible during this IGF. This remains a challenge to the organisers, with too much interaction from those physically present at the conference and too little from the many remote participants, many of whom couldn’t afford the air fare to Bali but have much to contribute. Bridging this divide will be important in the future.
The tone of this IGF was set by the Snowden revelations. The US and other Western democracies were on the back foot, in stark contrast to their confident promotion of net freedom in Baku. Without openess, increased transparency and an end to mass surveillance it’s hard to see how they will regain their moral authority, leaving a huge vacuum at the heart of these debates. A vacuum that others – in particular China – are willing to fill. The battle to keep the multistakeholder, open internet free from top-down state interference is on-going. The IGF should give once confident advocates of net freedom serious pause for thought.
9 Oct 2013 | News, Russia
The Arctic Sunrise scandal began on 18 September, when Greenpeace activists reached Russia’s state gas giant Gazprom oil rig Prirazlomnaya. The Arctic Sunrise crew consisted of 28 activists from 18 different countries, including New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, Russia, France, Italy, Canada and Argentina, and two journalists – Russian photographer Denis Sinyakov and British videographer Kieron Bryan. Captain Peter Willcox was skipper of Greenpeace’s legendary “Rainbow Warrior” – a ship on which Greenpeace activists protested against testing nuclear weapons in late 1980s.
The activists lowered dinghies trying to disembark to the oil rig to hang out a banner, criticising petroleum production in the Arctic, but were seized by Russian frontier guards, “Arctic Sunrise” towed to Murmansk and its crew members arrested.
All thirty Greenpeace activists from “Arctic Sunrise” ship have face charges of piracy in Russian city of Murmansk – a criminal article which stipulates up to 15 years in jail.
The activists deny the charges and have been refusing to give evidence since their very arrest.
Vladimir Putin commented:
“I do not know the details of what happened, but they are definitely not pirates. But formally they tried to siege the rig, and our law enforcement authorities, our frontier guards didn’t know, who was trying to seize this rig under the name of Greenpeace – in the context of events in Kenya this could be anything,”
One could not perceive Russian president’s words unambiguously. On the one hand, he made it clear Greenpeace activists were not pirates, and his words have always been an indirect order for Russian courts. On the other hand, he did actually compare Greenpeace with terrorists.
Gennady Lyubin , executive director of Gazprom Schelf Neft – the owner of Prirazlomnaya –insists that Greenpeace members’ actions could have led to “unpredictable and even tragical consequences” and says that Prirazlomnaya is absolutely safe.
Russian journalists have stood up for their colleague Denis Sinyakov and his colleagues from Greenpeace.
They held pickets near Russian Investigative Committee headquarters in Moscow. Leading online media illustrated their articles with black squares instead of photographs.
Greenpeace, famous for its remarkable, yet always peaceful protests against threats to nature, have noted that “Arctic Sunrise” crew didn’t do any harm to anyone, nor did it try to take possessions.
What was happening should have been quite obvious for Russian authorities, including Vladimir Putin; it’s not the first time Greenpeace has protested against Gazprom’s petroleum production in the Arctic.
Early in September 20 Greenpeace activists wearing polar bear costumes blocked the entrance of Gazprom’s headquarters in Moscow. In late August six mountain climbers, including Greenpeace executive director Kumi Naidoo, climbed onto the Prirazlomnaya and managed to stay on its sheer wall for 15 hours. The activists said the rig’s workers poured cold water on them and threw metal objects at them.
That time they managed to avoid criminal prosecution.
Greenpeace activists also disrupted a football game between Swiss club Bazel and Gazprom-sponsored Schalke-04 for about five minutes by unfurling a gigantic banner saying “Gazprom. Don’t foul the Arctic”.
The Greenpeace Save the Arctic campaign was launched in June 2013. According to the the petition against offshore drilling in the has already been signed by almost four million people.
Has “Arctic Sunrise” crew manage to bring more world’s attention to the issue?
It seems Vladimir Putin and his team – intentionally or not – managed to change the subject from the threatened Arctic ecology to Russia’s repressive attitude towards any kinds of civil activism. The paradox is that Greenpeace has became a part of this focus shifting, now having to raise the alarm more as human rights advocates than ecologists.
However, the important question is whether such focus shifting is accidental.
Vladimir Putin is used to his reputation as someone who doesn’t exactly stick to the letter of the European Convention on Human Rights. But never has he shown the signs of being ready to give up any of his and his fellow oligarchs’ commercial interests. The Arctic Sunrise case is another example.
This article was originally published on 9 Oct 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
23 Sep 2013 | News
Brad Camembert / Shutterstock.com
It never occurred to me, when I started to write that what I was writing was controversial. Much of it grew out of my own feelings and concerns when I was young.
There were few challenges to my books then, although I remember the night a woman phoned, asking if I had written Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. When I replied that I had, she called me a communist and slammed down the phone. I never did figure out if she equated communism with menstruation or religion, the two major concerns in 12-year-old Margaret’s life.
But, in 1980, the censors crawled out of the woodwork, seemingly overnight, organised and determined. Not only would they decide what their children could read, but what all children could read. Challenges to books quadrupled within months, and we shall never know how many teachers, school librarians and principals quietly removed books to avoid trouble.
Censorship grows out of fear and, because fear is contagious, some parents are easily swayed. Book banning satisfies their need to feel in control of their children’s lives. This fear is often disguised as moral outrage. They want to believe that if their children do not read about it, their children will not know about it. And if they do not know about it, it will not happen.
Today, it is not only language and sexuality (the usual reasons given for banning my books) that will land a book on the censors’ hit list. It is Satanism, New Age-ism and a hundred other ‘isms’, some of which would be laughable if the implications were not so serious. Books that make kids laugh often come under suspicion; so do books that encourage kids to think, or question authority; books that don’t hit the reader over the head with moral lessons are considered dangerous.
My book Blubber was banned in Montgomery County, Maryland, for ‘lack of moral tone’ and, more recently, challenged in Canton, Ohio, for allowing evil behaviour to go unpunished. But in New Zealand it is used in teacher-training classes to help explain classroom dynamics. Censors do not want children exposed to ideas different from their own. If every individual with an agenda had his or her way, the shelves in the school library would be close to empty.
But I am encouraged by a new awareness. This year I have received a number of letters from young people who are studying censorship in their classes. And in many communities across the country, students from elementary through to high school are becoming active (along with caring adults) in the fight to maintain their right to read and their right to choose books. They are speaking before school boards, and, more often than not, when they do, the books in question are returned to the shelves.
Only when readers of all ages become active, only when readers are willing to stand up to the censors, will the censors get the message that they cannot frighten us.
Judy Blume writes books for readers of all ages. This article was first published in Index on Censorship magazine in 1993
To subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine, including free access to our archive, click here
