1 Dec 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, Russia
Earlier this month, Russia’s Department of Presidential Affairs won three defamation lawsuits against newspaper Novaya Gazeta in just one week.
“The court is being used as a censorship instrument; it has been serving officials rather than law lately”, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov told Index on Censorship.
The Department of Presidential Affairs of the Russian Federation is a state executive authority responsible for logistical support and social amenities for Russian federal authorities.
“Novaya Gazeta” is a twice-weekly newspaper owned by media tycoon Alexander Lebedev and the former president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. It is famous for its investigations and criticism of authorities.
In the week of 14–20 November Moscow’s Basmanny Court passed judgements on three libel claims brought by Department of Presidential Affairs against Novaya Gazeta. They all concerned publications about federal budget spending for controversial purposes.
One of the articles concerned firms close to the Department of Presidential Affairs which took part in drawing budget funds while reconstructing Russia’s main memorial to soldiers of World War II — the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Kremlin wall. The article contained a supposition that 91 million roubles were withdrawn from Russian federal budget for reconstruction works which might have had already been done.
The Department of Presidential Affairs filed a suit against Novaya Gazeta and the article’s author Roman Anin, claiming the information about alleged misapplication of funds was defamatory. The other two defamation suits the Department won against “Novaya Gazeta” were brought in response to articles about its controversial transactions with short-lived companies, and high staff salaries which exceeded the ones publically declared.
The newspaper will also have to pay the Department and personally it’s head Vladimir Kozhin 100 thousand roubles (2049,77 GBP) in damages for the article about extremely high salaries. This article’s author Zinaida Burskaya has to pay 10 thousand roubles (204,98 GBP). The statements in them will also have to be refuted in “Novaya Gazeta”.
The Department’s spokesperson Viktor Khrekov said he was satisfied with the court’s decisions.
The newspaper’s attorney Yaroslav Kozheurov, in his order, said he will appeal the court’s decision. He expressed confidence that in spite of the judge’s decision the facts mentioned in the articles were sufficiently proven in the court.
“But even such controversial proceedings are better than shooting journalists,” says Muratov. Two“Novaya Gazeta” journalists were assassinated in last five years: Anna Politkovskaya, Anastasia Baburova. “Defamation suits will remain a key factor in suppressing free speech as long as Vladimir Putin rules the country,” Muratov concluded.
30 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
The web has been awash with outrage this week after video emerged of a woman engaged in a racist rant on a tram in Croydon.
The woman has now been arrested for a “racially aggravated” Public Order offence. The specific charge falls under section 4a, “Intentional harassment, alarm or distress”. Convictions can carry a prison sentence of up to six months.
Let’s leave aside for a moment the problematic nature of the Public Order Act, which it can be argued has its practical uses (allowing police to arrest people before violence breaks out), but can be used to censor “offensive” behaviour such as preaching or protest.
There were two things that were fascinating and troubling about the whole “My Tram Experience” experience.
The first is that the woman seems quite unwell. This does not necessarily excuse her behaviour, but in the rush to condemn her behaviour there seemed to be a hell of a lot of opprobrium and very little sympathy.
The other element was the fact that this was filmed and released on YouTube at all.
I tried to imagine how an incident like this would have played out 10 years ago, pre YouTube, pre Twitter. The woman may or may not have been kicked off the tram. People would have got off the tram and told a few people about the weird woman on the bus. That would probably have been the end of it.
Remember when everyone used to worry about CCTV cameras? It was at the height of paranoia about the Labour governments “authoritarianism”, when campaigners such as No2ID warned that the UK’s state surveillance apparatus was worse than that of the Stasi.
That panic seems to be over, perhaps due to many who made the argument being willing to give the Liberal Democrats a chance on civil liberties.
But it’s also perhaps due to a change in thinking. In the age of cameraphones and YouTube, do we now take it for granted that someone’s filming? Are we willingly becoming a citizen Stasi, happy to record and report each other’s behaviour?
18 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
In an Afghanistan prison, one woman is serving a 12-year sentence for being the victim of a rape. Another woman is serving time for running away from 10 years of abuse from her husband. These women want to tell their stories, and in late 2010, they were given the chance to speak out in an EU funded film. But post-production, the film has been blocked by the EU, leaving these women with the weight of their stories, and no forum for them to be heard.
With the help of the European Union, London based film maker Clementine Malpas set out to expose the plight of women convicted of “moral crimes” in Afghanistan. After working on the film for three months, gaining the trust and support of the Afghan women interviewed, Malpas was told the film “In-Justice: The story of Afghan women,” would never be released.
50 per cent of women imprisoned in the country are there for moral crimes, namely running away from home, or having sex outside of marriage, including rape as well as adultery and consensual sex outside wedlock, and Malpas wanted to broadcast this issue to the world.
Initially, the partnership between Malpas and the EU was to create a documentary film which followed a female politician through her election campaign, right up to the election date, but this plan fell through. Malpas presented the EU with other options, and the concept for the film on moral crimes was approved.
Malpas said: “I got into documentaries to show human rights abuses, to shine a light on awful situations, and tell the world what is going on, so I was glad to do the film about the women in prison. It’s something I feel passionately about.”
In the film, two women, imprisoned for moral crimes explain how they ended up in prison. 19-year-old Gulnaz, who was particularly passionate about having her story told, was arrested after her cousin’s husband tied her hands and feet together and raped her.
26-year-old Farida fled from an abusive husband who had chased her around their house with an iron rod, and threatened to urinate in her mouth. She was arrested whilst staying with the family of another man. Police said they could tell she had committed adultery, because she was not a virgin — but Farida had been married for ten years, and had a baby.
Both women gave their consent for the documentary to be made, both on film, and in writing. Gulnaz said “I have no other option, you have to tell my story. I want everyone to know that I am innocent.” But the EU have cited concerns over the safety of the women as their reason for blocking the film.
Malpas said: “After making the film and beginning distribution, I was told this film is never going to be broadcast. It’s such an important story. I really wanted to get the message out. It would be even more powerful if the story comes from these women, rather than from me talking about them.”
Heather Barr, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch, agreed that it was essential to give these women a chance to discuss what has happened to them.
“It sounds to me like an overwhelming majority of these women in prison haven’t committed crimes under the penal code. These women are invisible. People don’t know that this issue exists. It’s important to talk about this – these women are imprisoned for being victims of abuse.”
She added: “These imprisonments tell a story about how little progress has been made since the fall of the Taliban, and it shows the terrible state the justice system is in.”
Malpas explained that the EU’s decision not to release the film had been a blessing in disguise — the film, and therefore the subject, is getting more press coverage and interest than it would have, had it been approved.
“For me, it’s not about the EU blocking the film, it’s about the story getting out there,” she says
An EU representative told Associated Press:
“The EU decided to withdraw the film only because there were very real concerns for the safety of the women it portrayed. Their welfare was and continues to be the paramount consideration in this matter.”
Malpas explained that since the press coverage began, she has received widespread support. MP’s and MEP’s from around the country have written to the film-maker advocating the documentary, and the issue has been discussed in European Parliament.
But despite that, Malpas doesn’t believe the film will ever be released. She said:
“There’s a hold on this film – and it’s never going to be let go.”
16 Nov 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
The solicitor representing hacking victims attacked Britain’s tabloid press today as he pledged to unmask the “tawdry journalistic trade” at the third hearing of the Leveson Inquiry.
David Sherborne, who is representing 51 core participant victims, gave a powerful and emotional account of how murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked by the News of the World. He called the act one of “cruelty and insensitivity” and said that Dowler’s parents will testify of the euphoria they felt when the deletion of their daughter’s messages meant they thought she was alive.
Sherborne questioned News International’s earlier claims that hacking was limited to one rogue reporter, adding that there was a cover-up at the newspaper over the extent of the practice, and that there was a concerted effort after the event to “conceal the ugly truth from surfacing.”
He said the paper’s former glory has been so “fatally befouled by its cultural dependency on the dark arts”, giving journalism a bad name.
But phone hacking was, Sherbone said, “just one symptom” of a disease afflicting Britain’s tabloid press. He called the red-tops’ treatment of the parents of Madeleine McCann, he little girl who went missing in Portugal in 2007, “a national scandal”. He noted that Kate McCann’s diary that was given to Portuguese police was published by the News of the World and left her feeling, in her husband’s words “mentally raped”.
He also attacked the reporting of the arrest of Christopher Jefferies, the landlord of murdered Bristol woman Joanna Yeates who was later released without charge and cleared of any involvment of any involvement in her death. Reading out a range of damning headlines referencing Jefferies, Sherborne accused the press of a “frenzied campaign to blacken his [Jefferies’] character, a frightening combination of smear, innuendo and complete fiction”,
Sherborne said such stories were printed to “make money, not solve crimes”, and that none of them had a public interest defence. Earlier this year, both the Daily Mirror and the Sun were fined for contempt of court for articles published about a suspect arrested on suspicion of Yeates’ murder.
The Dowler family, Gerry McCann and Jefferies will all give evidence to the Inquiry next week.
Sherborne also made the case for respect to individual privacy, saying it was “as much a mark of a tolerant and mature society as a free and forceful press.” He condemned tabloid culture of kiss-and-tell-stories, citing reporters’ invasions into the lives of JK Rowling, Charlotte Church, Max Mosley, Sheryl Gascoigne and Hugh Grant, all of whom will be giving evidence in the coming weeks.
In a recent development, Sherborne added that the mother of Hugh Grant’s child had received abusive phone calls because the actor had criticised the press. She was allegedly told to “tell Hugh Grant to shut the fuck up”. Sherborne said that last Friday he had to seek an emergency injunction on behalf of a woman who just had the actor’s baby, the real reason for which being the threats she had received.
Sherborne said he was calling for “real change.”
Earlier in the day, the National Union of Journalists’ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet painted a stark picture of journalistic life in the UK, with an omnipotent editor, a slew of relentless pressures, and “brutal” consequences for reporters who did not deliver stories. She said a culture of fear among journalists inhibited them defending fundamental and ethical principles, and that speaking out publicly was “simply not an option” for fear of losing their jobs.
Referring to one of the Inquiry’s key questions raised by Lord Justice Leveson earlier this week, Stanistreet argued that the protection of journalists by way of a trade union could help “guard the guardians” and promote ethical awareness.
Following her, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger made the case for a stronger Press Complaints Commission that must have the power to intervene, investigate meaningfully and impose significant sanctions. Unimpressed by how the PCC handled phone hacking, Rusbridger argued in favour of a press standards and mediation commission, a “one-stop shop” that is responsive, quick and cheap. He added that the industry needed to establish a public interest defence that could be agreed upon and argued for.
Leveson agreed on the value of a “mechanism being set up that benefits all”, but questioned how to persuade those who do not subscribe to the PCC that it is a sensible approach.
Sherborne, however, vowed that his victims’ evidence will show “how hopelessly inadequate this self-regulatory code is as a means of curbing the excesses of the press.”
While conceding he, his clients and Rusbridger may agree on strengthening the PCC, Sherborne also quoted a client who claimed that leaving the PCC in the hands of newspapers would be tantamount to “handing a police station over to the mafia.”
The Inquiry will continue with evidence from victims on 21 November.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
