The undersigned regional and international NGOs join Tunisian organisations in their demands that the government immediately withdraw a draft law on the broadcasting regulator which fails to meet international standards on freedom of expression and independent broadcasting in democratic countries.
As part of the important process of harmonising Tunisian legislation with the 2014 Constitution, a draft law was submitted to the Assembly of People’s Representatives in December 2017 and it is currently under review by the parliamentary Commission of Rights and Freedoms. The draft law would partly replace the existing legislation in this area -Decree-Law No. 116-2011, on the Freedom of Broadcasting Communication and the creation of the Higher Independent Audio-Visual Communication Authority (HAICA) – with new legislation solely establishing a new broadcasting regulator, the Audio-Visual Commission.
The draft law and associated reforms have already been criticised by civil society, as the bill was prepared by the Tunisian government without substantial prior dialogue with local human rights and professional groups.
In June and again in December 2017, Tunisian and international human rights and professional groups wrote open letters to President Beji Caid Essebsi, Parliament Speaker Mohamed Ennacer and Prime Minister Youssef Chahed, expressing their deep concern about the draft law, its “unsatisfactory wording”, the “dangerous restrictions” of the prerogatives of the broadcasting regulator it would create, and the “deficiencies in the safeguards guaranteeing” its independence. They also explained that fragmenting of the legal framework “would open the door to ambiguity, conflict and limitation of the freedom of audiovisual communication and the independence of the regulatory body.” There has been no response.
Two legal analyses of the draft Law were made public in Tunis in early January 2018 by Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State (VDCS) and by ARTICLE 19, which concluded that the draft law did not comply with applicable international standards.
We, the undersigned, call on the Tunisian government to immediately withdraw its draft law and initiate a constructive dialogue with relevant civil society and professional groups, independent media experts, and members of parliament. Such a dialogue would help pave the way for the adoption of a comprehensive audiovisual law, in line with the 2014 Constitution and international standards.
Signed,
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
7amleh – Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
ARTICLE 19
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Association for Media Development in South Sudan (AMDISS)
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Independent Journalism – Romania
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Digital Rights Foundation
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Foundation for Press Freedom – FLIP
Freedom Forum
I’lam Arab Center for Media Freedom Development and Research
Independent Journalism Center – Moldova
Index on Censorship
Maharat Foundation
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Watch
National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)
Pacific Islands News Association
Pakistan Press Foundation
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Trinidad and Tobago’s Publishers and Broadcasters Association
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
Arab Society for Academic Freedoms
Association Ifouki Media Bladi (IBM), Morocco
Community Media Solutions (CMSO)
Community Radios Association (ARAM), Morocco
Euromed Rights
Center for Media Freedom (CMF), Morocco
Organization for Freedom of Expression and of the Media (OLIE), Morocco
Forum for alternatives in Morocco (FEMAS)
Freedom Now, Morocco
International Media Support (IMS)
Lawyers for Justice in Libya
Libya Al-Mostakbal Center for Media and Culture
Libyan Center for Press freedom (LCPF)
Moroccan Association for Investigative Journalism (AMJI)
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”El galardonado cineasta Marco Salustro describe los desafíos periodísticos que supone documentar la difícil situación de los miles de migrantes huidos de África subsahariana, ahora retenidos en Libia”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
Varios libios intentan huir del país por mar en una embarcación de goma al noroeste de Trípoli, Irish Defence Forces/Flickr
«¿Por qué, si saben que podrían morir en el mar, siguen viniendo?». Esa es la pregunta que se hacen muchos europeos sobre la constante marea de migrantes que intentan cruzar de África a Italia, Grecia y otras partes de Europa, hacinados en barcas a menudo no aptas para navegar, muchos de ellos muriendo en el intento.
Quise mostrar lo que está pasando al otro lado del Mediterráneo, en Libia. Trabajar en el país es difícil y peligroso, incluso aunque conozcas el lugar y tengas buenos contactos. No sabíamos qué esperar.
Lo que descubrimos fueron cientos de personas retenidas en campos, esperando, soñando con una vida mejor. Algunos estaban tan delgados que se les veían los huesos de la espalda. «No sabemos qué viene después», nos dijo una mujer.
Los migrantes se muestran ansiosos por hablar a la cámara, desesperados por pedir auxilio, por decir: «Estamos aquí y somos humanos, existimos». En cierto modo creen que, si el mundo ahí fuera lo supiese, pasaría algo y cambiarían las cosas. No se pueden creer que estén abandonados a su suerte.
Estos refugiados, personas desesperadas que huyen del terror en su propio país (Sudán, Eritrea y Somalia), están alojados en hangares gigantes. Los obligan a vivir allí, a menudo con comida y agua escasas, y corren el riesgo de sufrir palizas. Habitantes de una zona a medio camino entre su tierra natal y la libertad que ansían, no tienen ni la más remota idea de si podrán dejar Libia algún día.
Durante mi investigación sobre el tema, necesité acceder a centros controlados por el gobierno y obtener el permiso del ministerio del interior. Un requisito habitual son las autorizaciones firmadas por la policía u otros cuerpos, cosa que supone pasar días enteros en salas de espera y hacer múltiples llamadas a diversas oficinas. A veces ni siquiera esos preparativos bastaban, como cuando en una ocasión visité el centro Abu Slim, oficialmente controlado por el gobierno. Aunque la visita la había organizado el ministerio e iba acompañado por un agente, los milicianos, a quienes no habían consultado con antelación, nos vetaron la ventrada. Al cruzar las puertas, un grupo de jóvenes en sandalias y armados con pistolas amenazaron al director y a los agentes.
Por supuesto, al no haber libertad de prensa en Libia, apenas rascamos la superficie y tratamos de ahondar tanto como sea posible, teniendo en cuenta que lo que vemos nunca es toda la realidad.
Mientras trabajaba, todas las milicias con las que me encontré demostraban de buena gana lo bien que se les daba controlar a los migrantes, y lo más increíble de todo es que no se preocupaban por ocultar todos los abusos que perpetraban. En cierto modo parecían creer que en Europa nada de esto nos importa, mientras sigan encargándose de que no lleguen migrantes a nuestras costas. En algunos casos, la única razón por la que me permitían trabajar en un campo era porque la milicia creía que la visibilidad de los medios podría servir para presionar al gobierno.
Lo más aterrador de todo es que lo que veíamos y documentábamos era solo la mejor parte: lo que enseñan lo consideran aceptable, incluso una fuente de orgullo. Aun así, las condiciones de vida que presencié eran extremas y los abusos estaban a la orden del día. Es posible que lo que pasa cuando nadie mira sea aún más horrible.
La muerte de más de 800 hombres, mujeres y niños ahogados en el Mediterráneo el 18 de abril de 2015 conmovió la opinión pública europea. Después de aquello, la Unión Europea declaró estar dispuesta a bombardear los barcos y puertos involucrados en el transporte de migrantes por mar. El gobierno de Trípoli, que cuenta con el apoyo de la coalición islamista Amanecer Libio, declaró su intención de intervenir en la lucha contra el tráfico de personas, e inició una campaña con la intención de demostrar que no se andaba con chiquitas a la hora de contener la llegada de migrantes. El gobierno libio también recibe apoyo de la UE a cambio de ayudar a controlar el tráfico en el Mediterráneo.
Los migrantes se han convertido en una valiosa moneda de cambio en la pugna por el poder, pues las milicias libias —de las que se cree que cumplen un papel fundamental en el mercado del tráfico de personas— se metieron en política de migración para tratar de ejercer más influencia sobre el gobierno.
Varios funcionarios del estado me contaron que no tenían los recursos suficientes para llevar a cabo ninguna de las operaciones anunciadas por el gobierno, así que habían contratado la fuerza bruta de las milicias «para asegurar las costas y evitar que se cruce ilegalmente hasta Europa».
Las historias que cuentan los migrantes son espantosas, no pueden hablar con libertad y lo que nos llega de ellos no es toda la verdad. Los migrantes con los que volví a encontrarme, cuando algunos de ellos lograron llegar a Europa, me hablaron de torturas y matanzas como parte de la rutina diaria.
Me pareció importante contar esta historia para revelar lo que ocurre más allá de donde alcanza la vista de los europeos. Mientras el público exigía un mayor esfuerzo por salvar las vidas de los migrantes en el mar Mediterráneo, los intentos del gobierno de Trípoli por mostrarse como un colaborador de confianza en las actividades de control de la migración de la UE no han hecho más que empeorar las condiciones de vida y multiplicar los peligros que sufren los migrantes en Libia.
Marco Salustro produjo el especial Europe or Die, Libia’s Migrant Trade para VICE news y es ganador del premio Rory Peck 2016 al mejor reportaje
Este artículo fue publicado en la revista de Index on Censorship en invierno de 2016
Traducción de Arrate Hidalgo
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Fashion Rules” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F12%2Fwhat-price-protest%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The winter 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at fashion and how people both express freedom through what they wear.
In the issue: interviews with Lily Cole, Paulo Scott and Daphne Selfe, articles by novelists Linda Grant and Maggie Alderson plus Eliza Vitri Handayani on why punks are persecuted in Indonesia.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”82377″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/12/what-price-protest/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
Stall at the Gagged exhibition, showcasing political cartoonists’ work
“This is a key to realms of wonder, but it’s also a deadly weapon, a weapon of mass distraction,” UK cartoonist Martin Rowson said, describing a pen, as he opened a discussion about censorship and repression of political cartoonists.
The event had planned a video link-up with Zulkiflee Anwar Haque, the Malaysian cartoonist better known as Zunar, but he was unable to attend. There have been reports of his arrest. Zunar uses his art to take a stand against corruption in Malaysian politics. The cartoonist is facing 10 sedition charges which are still pending trial. On these charges, Zunar faces 43 years in prison.
In his absence, a video of the cartoonist was shown in which he states, “you can ban my books, you can ban my cartoons, but you cannot ban my mind”.
The Westminster Reference Library hosted a discussion on 28 November, during an exhibition of political cartoons: Gagged. Speakers included Index on Censorship’s Jodie Ginsberg, UK cartoonist Martin Rowson, Sudanese cartoonist Khalid Albaih, and Cartoonist Rights Network International’s Robert Russell.
Cartoonist Rowson and Albaih, currently based in Copenhagen, expressed the responsibility they feel working from a safe environment. They acknowledged the oppression of their colleagues and cited them as inspiration for the cartoons they continue to publish.
“I feel so guilty that I’m here doing this but at the same time, I have a lot of friends who are in jail, who were arrested, and who are really fighting that fight to say what they want to say … It’s something that hurts me everyday”, Albaih said. “Everyday that I’m walking down Copenhagen. It’s a beautiful city but I can’t enjoy it because most of my friends can’t even get a visa to go to the country next to them … People like Zunar, they’re incredible and they’re powerful and I look up to them. And I hope one day I can go back to my country and be able to do that without being scared that something will happen to my kids, you know?”
Ginsberg spoke on the importance of freedom of expression in the face of adversity and the reality of censorship in countries that believe they have “free speech”. “Censorship isn’t something that happens ‘over there’. It happens here and it happens on our doorstep.”
“I genuinely believe that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I also think … that many pens and many voices are even better. Oppressors win when they think their opponents are alone,” Ginsberg said. “We succeed when we demonstrate that it’s not the case.”
**The exhibition has now been extended to 7 December.
David Sheen at Israel’s State Archives in Jerusalem (Credit: Rotem Malenky)
Israeli-Canadian journalist David Sheen, a former editor at Haaretz who regularly reports on racism against Africans within Israel, is the subject of a defamation lawsuit by former Israeli general Israel Ziv demanding $200,000. The case falls under what is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation – or SLAPP.
“Ziv claims that I have defamed him by reporting on his activities and by referring to him in my tweets as an ‘arch-racist’, a ‘racist ringleader’, and a ‘war crimes whitewasher,’” Sheen said in an email to Index. “I contend that these are my opinions and that they are based on reported facts.”
In January 2017, Sheen wrote an article for the Electronic Intifada, an independent news website focusing on Palestine, entitled Netanyahu Openly Boasts of Israel’s War on Africans, in which he refers to Ziv as one of ten Israeli “ringleaders in Israel’s war on Africans”.
The mentions of Ziv in Sheen’s article refer to an investigation by Israel’s Channel 2 TV in 2016 that made public conversations between Ziv, now the owner of security consultancy company Global CST, and his associates during which they discussed a campaign with the objective to “whitewash the reputation” of the “cruel president” of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, “and to fortify his regime”. This followed a report by the United Nations that Kiir had allowed soldiers under his command to commit “a multitude of horrendous human rights violations,” including raping women and children en masse “in lieu of wages”. Ideas floated during Ziv’s meeting include that Kiir could blame these crimes on indigenous African tribal culture or that he could make a speech at the UN flanked by the victims.
Channel 2 TV and other news organisations that reported on this story are not facing legal action from Ziv, but Sheen, an independent journalist, is.
“While large news organisations employ teams of lawyers who can fend off SLAPP suits and legal harassment, independent journalists such as myself don’t, so we present a tempting target,” Sheen told Index. “But more than this: the mainstream media reports of Ziv’s efforts to aid the president of South Sudan were in the Hebrew language, which is only spoken by 0.1% of the world population.”
Sheen’s report was in English, the third most-spoken language in the world. “So even though my report was published by a small independent outlet, it has the potential of being read by many more people, and that is something that Ziv clearly wishes to prevent,” he said.
Sheen added that, in general terms, reporting on Israeli mistreatment of Africans is sometimes met with more resistance than reporting on Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. “There is already a well-established ‘both sides’ narrative that can be utilised to try to explain away the latter. Israel’s defenders can say that Jews and Arabs have been battling for a hundred years, so Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is just another round of tit for tat fighting.” he said. “They can’t use this narrative in regards to Israeli mistreatment of Africans because there is no recent – or ancient – history of conflict between Jews and African peoples. Unable to neuter criticism of the maltreatment of Africans, Israel’s defenders hope to silence reports about it.”
Sheen added that the libel lawsuit against him sends a clear warning to his fellow journalists that “in Israel, free speech is far from free, and powerful people can make critical speech extremely expensive for you, so don’t do it”.
“The case against David Sheen appears to be politically motivated,” said Melody Patry, head of advocacy at Index on Censorship. “No journalist should be prosecuted for exercising their freedom of speech.”
In recent years a number of lawsuits, many successful, have been made against journalists by officials in Israel, including a $464,000 2016 libel case against reporter Sharon Shpurer for a Facebook post disparaging an Israeli developer who is a convicted human trafficker. In July 2017, a journalist who claimed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was kicked out of his car by his wife was ordered to pay $32,500 in damages to the couple for libel.
“As it is, most Israeli media outlets serve as semi-stenographers of the Israeli army, repeating its press releases as though they were objective fact,” Sheen told Index. “The additional danger of crippling legal fees and fines will further disincentivise telling truth to power and leave Israeli society with increasingly impoverished fourth and fifth estates. Obviously, those who will suffer most as a result will be the country’s oppressed populations.”
In August 2017, the Israeli government announced proposals to ban Al Jazeera from operating in the country, echoing similar moves by Saudi Arabia and others who demanded that Qatar shutter the network and other media outlets as part of a list of demands to end a diplomatic crisis. The Israeli Government Press Office seemed intent on revoking the press credentials of Al Jazeera reporter Elias Karram but decided against this on 30 August. However, this was only after Karram provided a statement saying he does not support terrorism. The head of the GPO has said the body will “keep track of the network’s reports in Israel, in Arabic and in English, and will not hesitate to reach the necessary conclusions after consulting with legal and security officials”.
“Without question, freedom of the press is steadily decreasing in Israel,” Sheen told Index. “Sadly, many Israeli citizens seem to support it: in a 2015 article I wrote for Alternet, I noted that nearly half of Israelis believe that harsh public criticism of the government should be against the law.”
During a pre-trial session on 18 September, the dates for the case against Sheen will be set.
Supporters of Sheen have set up a petition to support the journalist.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1504615911945-5d3d3e69-6e05-2″ taxonomies=”180, 449″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
