22 Oct 2010 | Uncategorized
Robert Mugabe: Guardian of electoral integrity. You heard it here first.
Sadly, this new found democratic fervour does not extend itself to Zimbabwe’s next election — just last week the president branded the current power-sharing agreement “foolish and stupid”. Instead, Mugabe’s allies are outraged by the African version of Big Brother. Following the Zimbabwean contestant’s fall at the final hurdle, Mugabe’s office demanded recordings of the show. Mugabe’s nephew, Phillip Chiyangwa, and other loyalists have declared that the voting was not “free and fair” and the Africa-wide voting system by mobile phone was blasted as a “disgrace”.
Fortunately, the injustice done by the Nigerian winner to 24-year-old Munyaradzi Chidzonga, who often appeared draped in the Zimbabwean flag and regularly expressed a desire to meet Mugabe, has been redressed. On his return to Harare and a hero’s welcome, Chidzonga received a high profile meeting with his supportive president and $300,000 raised in donations.
Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party have never been short of audacity, crushing expressions of dissent in everything from elections to cricket. We should not be surprised at this profession of respect for a fair franchise though. Slapstick hypocrisy appears the norm for Mugabe and his party.
The Big Brother incident mirrors Zanu-PF’s pathological aversion to the choices of the populace, especially when the outcome proves inexpedient. It will take quite a shift before we witness a magnanimous departure and hear the words, “Robert, you have been evicted. Please leave the building.”
20 Oct 2010 | Uncategorized
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) published its ninth annual World Press Freedom Index today, with a mixed bag of what secretary-general Jean François Julliard calls “welcome surprises” and “sombre realities”.
Six countries, all in Europe, share the top spot this year — Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland — described as the “engines of press freedom”. But over half of the European Union’s member states lie outside the top 20, with some significantly lower entries, such as Romania in 52nd place and Greece and Bulgaria tied at 70th. The report expresses grave concerns that the EU will lose its status as world leader on human rights issues if so many of its members continue to fall down the rankings.
The edges of Europe fared particularly badly this year; Ukraine (131st) and Turkey (138th) have fallen to “historically low” rankings, and despite a rise of 13 places, Russia remains in the worst 25 per cent of countries at 140th. It ranks lower than Zimbabwe, which continues to make steady — albeit fragile — progress, rising to 123rd.
At the very bottom of the table lie Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan, as they have done since the index first began in 2002. Along with Yemen, China, Sudan, Syria, Burma and Iran, they makes up the group of worst offenders, characterised by “persecution of the media” and a “complete lack of news and information”. RSF says it is getting harder and harder to distinguish between these lowest ten countries, who continue to deteriorate. There are particular fears about the situation for journalists in Burma ahead of next month’s parliamentary election.
Another country creating cause for concern in the run-up to elections is Azerbaijan, falling six places to 152nd. Index on Censorship recently joined other organisations in a visit to Baku to assess the health of the country’s media. You can read about their findings in a joint mission report, ‘Free Expression under Attack: Azerbaijan’s Deteriorating Media Environment’, launching this Thursday, 28 October, 6.30 pm, at the Free Word Centre. Belarus, another country on which Index is campaigning, languishes at 154th.
It is worth noting, though, that relative press freedom rankings can only tell so much. Cuba, for example, has risen out of the bottom 20 countries for the first time, partly thanks to its release of 14 journalists and 22 activists this summer, but journalists still face censorship and repression “on a daily basis”. Similarly, countries such as South Korea and Gabon have climbed more than 20 places, only to return to the position they held before a particularly bad 2009. It seems, then, that the struggle for press freedom across the world must continue to be a “battle of vigilance”.
2 Jul 2010 | News
The right to freedom of expression does not entitle indefinite occupation of public land. Brett Lock of Harry’s Place responds to Index’s support for Parliament Square protesters
The right to freedom of expression is precisely that: a right to receive and impart ideas. It does not enable a man to live in a tent on public land for nearly a decade, if he has no independent right to do so.
It is legal to advertise goods and services but illegal to fly-poster the side of a public building with advertising material. There is no law against singing sea shanties, but you may be ejected from a cinema if you decide to do so in the middle of a film. You cannot play a country and western record at top volume at 2am. All these examples restrict what can be said, expressed or broadcast, but none are forms of censorship. They are merely controls on the time and place of expression.
This is a crucial distinction. Censorship seeks to silence and suppress ideas. Telling a person to shut up at this particular moment, in this particular place, is not censorship. Doing so does not seek to suppress their ideas. It protects the rights of others to peace and quiet. All reasonable people understand this.
So, what of Brian Haw, the “protester” who has lived in a tent on Parliament Square for almost a decade, wafting from one issue to another and drawing all manner of fringe causes to his orbit? Recently I walked past and there was a wall of placards claiming the Freemasons had murdered a range of people, including the late wife of Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, who died in a car accident. Haw also believes that 9/11 was an “inside job”.
That said, we should not be distracted by the fact that many of the views presented for our consumption by the Haw camp are quite mad. They are ideas and they are being expressed. That is sufficient for their protection. That is why temporary and short-lived demonstrations, in the symbolically important environment of Parliament Square, should most certainly be permitted.
However, I would not be allowed to install a booth providing information about the products and services of my business in Parliament Square or on any other public land. I would not be allowed to set up a small stage and host an alternative Glastonbury. So why should Haw and his colourful troupe be any different? Disseminating his ideas he is free to do. He may push leaflets through our doors. He may participate in radio phone-ins. He can set up a website. He can even hold a daily protest. But what he can’t do is live in a tent on public ground indefinitely merely because he’s scrawled a political slogan on a bit of old cardboard.
Haw’s protest is repetitive to the point where it is just white noise. He can’t shut up because he’s afraid not for his ideas (which are expressed daily by millions) but for himself: that he might be an irrelevance without his tent and his bit of cardboard.
Quite frankly, I am alarmed that Index on Censorship has taken such an
unsophisticated view of this case, and indeed, is enabling the self-destructive behaviour of a man who strikes me as quite possibly mentally ill. I feel so strongly about it, that I’ve written an article on the subject. But I most emphatically do not have the right to express my opposition by setting up a permanent camp outside Index on Censorship Chair Jonathan Dimbleby’s house.
Or do I?
Brett Lock was the editor of Gay Humanist Quarterly. He is also a regular contributor to the political blog Harry’s Place and a campaigner with the gay human rights group, OutRage!.
As Boris Johnson wins his fight to “democracy village”, Bibi van der Zee asks if the courts intend to end the great British tradition of camping in protest
9 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
Much may have changed in the 44 years since North Korea last fielded a team at the World Cup, but the country’s government remains as staunch as ever in controlling the flow of information both to and from its citizens.
Thus far, the addition of totalitarianism to the cosmopolitan, carnivalesque mix of the World Cup has been not only a sinister but faintly surreal exercise, with journalists attending yesterday’s training session outside Johannesburg turned away in farcical circumstances. Having been told that the practice would be open to the media, anyone turning up found the gates barred, and their presence most definitely unwelcome. A small number of photographers were accidentally let into the padlocked and guarded stadium, but were hurriedly ejected as the team bus arrived.
Previously, head coach Kim Jong-Hun had, somewhat sneakily, attempted to trade on the mystery surrounding his players by registering one of his reserve centre forwards as a goalkeeper (FIFA rules state that each team’s squad must include three keepers); his plan backfired, however, when he was found out, and told that striker Kim Myong Won would now only be able to play in goal.
Not that those cheering for the North Koreans are likely to notice the difference: the 1,000 or so North Korean supporters currently in South Africa are actually a cohort of Chinese actors and musicians hired out to cover the fact that few North Koreans possess the necessary funds and permission to travel to watch the tournament. Back at home, television coverage is likely to excise any mention of the team’s defeats or poor performances.
Government supervision also extends to the players themselves. Hong Young Jo, one of the few squad members to play his club football outside North Korea, was interviewed by the Russia’s Sport-Express newspaper in 2008, alongside a burly “translator” from North Korea’s security forces, who followed him at all times, granting or denying permission for Hong to speak to journalists or go for dinner with his team-mates.
The more sinister side of North Korea’s involvement in the tournament was underlined by the protests that greeted the team’s arrival in Zimbabwe for a series of warm-up matches at the beginning of June. Zimbabwean security forces trained by the North Korean army were responsible for brutally quashing a 1987 insurgency in the province of Matabeleland, killing between 8,000 and 20,000 civilians; when the North Korean team were invited to stay in Bulawayo, the province’s capital, mass public outrage caused the entire trip to be abandoned.
However, North Korea’s policy of insulating their team from scrutiny may collide with FIFA’s approach to publicity within the next few days: their rules state that all teams must be available for media appearances at least 5 days before their first game. With North Korea kicking off their campaign on June 15, it’s likely that we will shortly get to see players and coaches communicating directly with the international press. The extent to which they’ll be able to speak freely is slightly harder to predict.
