5 Dec 2013 | News, South Africa
(Image: Annette Kurylo/Wikimedia Commons)
If Nelson Mandela’s legacy is summed up by one thing, it will be in symbolic moments, like the times when those “whites only” signs were torn down, no longer shouting that South Africa was a society where only its white people had opportunity, and aspiration, and when a reborn nation began its journey on a previously uncharted road to freedom.
At Index on Censorship we have collected significant articles from our archive that trace the history of the apartheid struggle, and some of the great writers who have commented, argued and analysed it for our magazine, including Nadine Gordimer and Albie Sachs.
Please browse them and remember the immense changes that Nelson Mandela helped make happen.
4 Dec 2013 | European Union, News, Ukraine
Protesters gather in Maidan Nezalezhnosti to register their disapproval of the government’s refusal to sign an association agreement with the European Union and its violent crackdown on peaceful demostrators. (Photo: Andrei Alaiksandrau / Index on Censorship)
Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the Independence Square in the centre of Kiev, leaves mixed impressions of courage and uncertainty. It has become a symbol of determination among ordinary Ukrainians to push for their rights and freedoms – but after the events of the last weekend it has also turned into a powerful reminder of how difficult and even bloody the fight can be.
Mass actions in Ukraine started on 21 November after it became clear that the country’s leaders were not going to sign a much anticipated association agreement with the European Union. The situation escalated after 29 November, when it was confirmed the agreement was not signed during the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius. Around 4 a.m. on 30 November riot police violently dispersed protesters from the Independence Square. Dozens of peaceful protesters and journalists were injured. The next day saw one of the largest mass street rallies in Ukrainian history, at least 200,000 people protested against the violent actions of the police. New clashes occurred; protesters and opposition parties called for the government to resign, but the vote of no confidence in the parliament failed. At the moment nobody has a clear answer what comes next.
There are a lot of young people among the protesters. Yuliya, a student of one of Kiev universities, says they are there to “defend their future.” “We want to live in a European country, and feel we are citizens that enjoy rights and freedoms,” she says. Several students said officials at their universities “promised troubles” to those who joined the protests. Some of the student demonstrators told Index that they were threatened with expulsion – but came out into the streets anyway.
Andrii is an employee of an IT firm from Lviv, a regional centres in western Ukraine. He and his friends traveled to Kiev to join the protest for several days during the last two weeks, despite the fact it is more than 500 km drive each way. “It is a crucial time for my country; I cannot just stay home when the fate of my nation is decided. The association agreement with the EU is a historical chance for Ukraine, the chance not to be missed,” he says.
“I went to Maidan, because I want to live in a European country; I want to walk even pavements, drive quality roads, enjoy quality public services for the high taxes I pay – and I don’t want to see my taxes go to pockets of president Yanukovich and his family. Directives of the EU establish quite high requirements for fighting corruption, this is why I support association with the European Union,” says Khrystyna, a lawyer from Kiev.
Roman Romanov, an expert on freedom of assembly with the International Renaissance Foundation, says he has never seen so many people in the streets of Ukraine.
“Now it is not only people who want the association agreement with the EU to be signed. People raise their voice against the police state and brutality against peaceful protesters; they understand that without them speaking out the rule of law will not be restored and justice will not be done,” Roman Romanov says.
Oksana Romaniuk, an executive director of the Institute of Mass Information, a Kiev-based freedom of expression organisation, also sees the difference in how society treats journalists.
“Fifty-one journalists were beaten by riot police in Ukraine between 29 November and 2 December. On the night of 30 November officers of Berkut, a riot police special force, specifically targeted journalists when they were dispersing the protest from the Independence Square. Now local businessmen offer their help to us – they buy first aid kits for journalists and offer money to cover medical treatment for injured reporters. And ordinary people suggest their help, too. I was really moved when a woman came up to me in a bus, as she heard I was ordering protecting helmets and vets for journalists. The lady gave me 200 hryvnias (around £15) and said ‘I have heard how journalists were beaten – please, take this money to help them’. I hope these are the signs that show society understands the importance of journalists’ work to inform people,” Oksana Romaniuk says.
“I did not know I live in a country where a bloody dispersal of a peaceful meeting can happen, where such inhuman brutality against unarmed people and journalists is possible. It is a disgrace for Ukrainian authorities,” she adds.
State officials of Ukraine promise they will make up for this “disgrace” and investigate the violent actions of the police. At the same time, president Yanukovich left for an official visit to China, despite the serious political crisis his country is in. The OSCE Parallel Civil Society conference called the situation in Ukraine “a human dimension crisis.”
“It looks like the authorities want to show they do not care about people that stay at Maidan. It is difficult to say what is going to happen next. I could not believe that happened in my country. Now I don’t see how this crisis is going to be resolved,” says an employee of a Kiev-based human rights organisation.
Last night it was peaceful at Maidan Nezalezhnosti. There was a concert with Ukrainian patriotic songs. People were sitting around fires in barrels; a dozen youngsters decided to warm themselves by playing football just beside a barricade. No police were seen anywhere.
“Would you like a cup of tea?” asked a young Ukrainian girl with a warm smile – she is just walking around Maidan with her boyfriend and a big thermos and offers a free hot drink she made at home to people who came out in a cold night to tell their government they choose a European future for their country. Will they be heard, remains a question.
This article was posted on 4 Dec 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
2 Dec 2013 | Croatia, News, Religion and Culture
Croatians cast their votes on whether marriage should be constitutionally recognised as being between a man and a woman (Image: Mc Crnjo/YouTube)
Croatia’s voters moved Sunday to amend the country’s constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The campaign had been orchestrated by the country’s religious institutions. Sixty-five percent of voters supported a change that effectively bars gay marriage.
The campaign used some interesting and controversial tactics. Religious teachers in schools threatened students that they wouldn’t get a passing grade if they did not provide proof of their families’ support for the constitutional change. This was reported by an English language teacher from Split, the second largest city in Croatia, to the inspection body of the Ministry of Education around mid-November.
“If this is the situation in Split I believe it is even worse in smaller towns”, concluded the teacher who did not want to sign her name.
Following this, the media received numerous letters from school teachers confirming that religious teachers around Croatia were blackmailing students to make sure their family members vote “for the protection of the family” — the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the referendum question.
“If the president of the country and other public persons can talk about voting at the referendum why can’t a religious teacher do so?” commented Sabina Marunčić, senior advisor for religious education at the Croatian Education and Teacher Training Agency.
Since the call for a referendum on 8 November, the campaign has been the main topic of discussion in Croatia, despite the country facing a severe economic crisis and an unemployment rate of 20.3 per cent. While Croatian law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this definition does not exist in the constitution. A recent announcement of a new law on same-sex partnerships has caused conservative movements to come together in the initiative “In the Name of Family”. They started spreading fear about gay marriage being legalised, despite the centre-left government showing no intention to do this. A 2003 law on same-sex partnerships has been seen as practically useless because it secures only a few, less important rights, and only after a relationship breaks down.
For weeks all anyone talked about was who will vote “for” and who will vote “against”, in the first national referendum in the Republic of Croatia set up by popular demand. The Social Democratic prime minister Zoran Milanović, President Ivo Josipović and numerous ministers all came forth against introducing the definition into the constitution. A large portion of powerful media was also openly against it. However, public opinion polls showed that 68 per cent of the citizens would vote for the proposal; 26 per cent against.
In the referendum campaign, the Catholic Church have firmly been advocating “for”. It has has a strong influence in the country of 4.29 million, with 86 per cent declaring themselves Catholic according to the latest census, released in 2011. The initiative “In the name of family” which has succeeded in gathering signatures of 740,000 citizens in order to hold a referendum is also linked to the Catholic Church.
“The church did not want to start the initiative for a referendum but it wholeheartedly accepted In the Name of Family, whose numerous members are conservative Catholics close to certain Croatian bishops,” says Hrvoje Crikvenec, editor of the religious portal Križ života (“Cross of Life”).
“However, I believe that the entire organisation and initiative is supported more by politics, that is, a marginal political right-wing party Hrast, than Croatian bishops. They have now become more involved in the campaign in the hope of what would for them be a positive outcome of the referendum, which would ultimately show them as winners.”
The initiative’s leaders do come from the non-parliamentary right-wing party Hrast, as well as conservative associations opposing the introduction of sex education in schools, artificial insemination and abortion. Some of them have been linked to Opus Dei, a secretive Catholic organisation which has been strengthening its presence in Croatia. In the Name of Family and the fight against a possible equal standing of homosexual and heterosexual marriages has provided them with the support of a larger portion of the public.
The Catholic Church has undoubtedly helped the success of a In the Name of Family. Signatures were gathered in front of churches and elsewhere, even in universities. Cardinal Josip Bozanić had written a note instructing priests to encourage believers in masses to attend the referendum and vote for the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Group prayers for its success were also organised throughout Croatia in the lead up to the vote.
“We can’t blame the bishops for advocating the referendum from the altar because this is a part of the church’s program. They are more entitled do so than to say who to vote for at the elections, which they also do. However, it is inadmissible for religious teachers to influence children in schools,” university professor of philosophy and political commentator Žarko Puhovski says.
Despite Croatia being a majority Catholic country, every fourth marriage ends in divorce and a decreasing number of couples are deciding to marry.
“The church’s influence on citizens is far greater regarding political than moral views. Church morality is accepted in principle, but political views supported by the church gain additional power. That is why the referendum is causing a short-term increase in the influence of the church, which has for years been weakening,” Puhovski explains.
Church leaders are often complaining about the non-existent dialogue with the current, left-wing government, especially regarding the issues they consider to be related to religion – education of children, family care and marriage.
“The ultimate success of this referendum is in showing the power of the church in Croatia. It has shown the government that it can move masses of people so in the future, the government will have to think carefully before making any decision which could harm their interests,” said a group of Roman Catholic theologists in a joint letter made public on 29 November.
“The relationship between the church and the state has mostly been disturbed by militant statements of individuals from the Catholic Church leadership, which seem to be best served with a one common mindset rather than political and worldview pluralism,” sociologist and ex-ambassador for the Holy See, Ivica Maštruko says.
“We are not dealing with a normal criticism of the current social state and relations, but bigotry, inappropriate discourse and civilisational and religious malice,” Maštruko added.
An example of such a discourse is provided by reputable former minister and theologist Adalbert Rebić who, earlier this year, was quoted as saying: “The conspiracy of faggots, communists and dykes will ruin Croatia.” Pastor Franjo Jurčević was convicted for publishing homophobic and extremist posts on his blog.
But in the campaign for the referendum the Catholic Church was joined by representatives of the other most influential religious communities in Croatia – Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Baptists and the Jewish community Bet Israel. Together they supported the referendum and invited the believers to vote in order to “secure a constitutional protection of marriage”. Religious communities in Croatia are usually rarely seen forming such shared views.
“The most interesting thing is the agreement between the Catholic Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church which have in the past twenty years completely missed the chance to initiate reconciliation, dialogue and co-existence during and after the wars in ex-Yugoslavia. Religious communities in the region can obviously agree only when they find a common enemy, which in the case of this referendum are LGBT persons,” Cirkvenec says.
Žarko Puhovski considers it indicative that religious communities in Croatia succeed in forming shared views only with regards to sexual morality.
“They have failed to reach a consensus on any other moral or political issue,” he concludes.
This article was published on 2 Dec 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
2 Dec 2013 | Middle East and North Africa, News, Saudi Arabia
A shot from the YouTube trailer for H W J N (Image: Yatakhayaloon Sci Fi/YouTube)
A top selling Saudi Arabian science fiction novel has been removed from book shops across the country.
Last Tuesday (26 Nov) representatives from the country’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice — the Haya’a — raided several bookshops selling the novel H W J N by Ibraheem Abbas and Yasser Bahjatt’s, demanding it’d be taken off the shelves. H W J N is a “fantasy, sci-fi and romance” novel about a genie who falls in love with a human, and is a best-seller in Saudi Arabia.
Our source, who wishes to remain anonymous, says the book is charged with “blasphemy and devil-worshiping”. They add that the ban appears to stem from a Facebook post accusing the novel of “referencing jinn [genies] and leading teenage girls to experiment with Ouija boards”.
An official, handwritten letter was delivered to at least one book store from the government body. It stated, among other things that: “We purchased one copy of the book to review and we have counted 73 copies of H W J N by Ibarheem Abbas at your shop. You are requested not to dispose of, sell, or return these books until further notice.” The owners were also asked to “follow up” on this with the Haya’a the following day (27 Nov).
The book is reportedly still available in smaller shops, and the English version is also reportedly available in a number of stores. It is so far unknown what actions, if any, are being taken against the authors.
This article was published on 2 Dec 2013 at indexoncensorship.org
