7 Oct 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, United Kingdom
Two names have rung through the halls of the Labour Party Conference last week – Nigel Farage, who was given a kicking – and Owen Jones, who was literally kicked out. The Guardian columnist had been vox-popping politicians and delegates for his YouTube channel. His style is confrontational. But did he cross a line? Apparently so. On Tuesday his conference pass was revoked over “safeguarding issues”. He was told: “After careful consideration, we’ve concluded that we cannot continue your attendance while ensuring we meet our safeguarding obligations to all attendees.” Jones has cried foul. He called it “Trumpian behaviour” and believes it was because of his “attempt to question Cabinet members and MPs about Britain facilitating Israel’s genocide”.
It was a similar story for Rivkah Brown from Novara Media, who had her pass revoked, safeguarding cited, and asked whether Labour was “purging journalists it doesn’t like”.
Whether their free speech rights were violated or not is hard to tell (of Owen’s behaviour specifically we spoke to some conference attendees who said it was aggressive and others who’ve said it wasn’t). If the safeguarding concerns were genuine then there isn’t much of a story here, for us at least. A free speech defence can’t be used to excuse bad behaviour. But Labour would do well to be open and transparent, to provide details of what specifically they think he did wrong. Otherwise, we’re left to draw the worst conclusions.
Labour is not the only party expunging its conference of critics. Reform and the Conservatives (whose conference started on Sunday) have banned reporters without explanation. One was Byline Times journalist Adam Bienkov, who has attended and reported from Conversative Party conferences for years now. Last year the Byline Times published an embarrassing story about Conservative party councillors pretending to be ordinary folk during a televised election campaign event. A year later, Bienkov is suddenly off the invite list.
A reminder – both parties are led by people who position themselves as guardians of free speech. It’s pretty revealing of the vacuity of such claims.
Meanwhile, the Green Party’s conference opened last friday. A few weeks ago a curious email came into my inbox. It was from an esteemed doctor who was organising a fringe event about medically unnecessary penile circumcision in children. It got cancelled. They’ve also not been given a reason and their suspicion is that it’s to avoid wading into something that might offend Jewish people and Muslims, and attract adverse media publicity as a result.
Party conferences are revenue-raising events yes, and the press are shipped in to capture the hot takes. But conferences are also places where policy is debated and agendas set. Journalists come to ask the tough questions and challenge politicians and even party members on inconsistencies or shortfalls. Fill the marquees with “yes” people and democracy is bound to suffer.
27 Aug 2025 | About Index, Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Newsletters, United Kingdom
Far too often in Britain and elsewhere governments claim the price of countering extremist threats is limiting free speech. The latest example in the UK is proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, which has led to hundreds of people arrested for peacefully holding up banners supporting the organisation. On the other side of the aisle, people are exercising their right to protest against the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, actions justified by the shadow home secretary Chris Philp, who said they had “every right to protest”. But there is a fear by some that that “cordon sanitaire” between peaceful protesters and extreme far right neo-Nazis is being breached, with Byline Times identifying known supporters of extremist groups taking part.
That balance between free speech, protest and extremism is a delicate one and the instinct of some politicians to demonstrate grip, or respond to what they see as the consensus, can be to ban things and even label them terrorist or extremist activities. We at Index were warning about this 10 years ago.
Round the world, we know that terrorism legislation is often used to stop journalists reporting and opposition parties standing for election. Anti-terrorism laws can be a catch-all which criminalises opponents and scares off criticism. In some countries clamping down on so-called “terrorism” serves to close down interference from abroad: “Don’t criticise us with your liberal ideas, we are keeping you safe by locking up people who could blow you up.”
Mostly governments really don’t want to discuss these messy nuances. So it might be somewhat surprising that the Home Office, on its website, has decided to publish a series of essays commissioned by the outgoing Commissioner for Counter-terrorism, Robin Simcox entitled: Countering Terrorism: Defending free speech. In his introduction Simcox explains why he commissioned these thought pieces: “One, freedom of speech matters greatly to me. Two, I think it is under sustained attack. Three, counter-extremism work too often forms part of the offensive.”
One of his points, and an argument made in many of the essays, is that freedom of expression is uncomfortable. He writes: “We defend it because freedom of expression is the route by which we discover the truth; because testing conflicting opinion can be challenging but ultimately makes our discourse healthier; and because we learn to accept and indeed cherish those with differing viewpoints. The alternative – a coerced, ‘acceptable’ consensus of the day – offers a bleak vision of the future.”
The idea of “tolerance”, one essay argues, leads to a flattening of robust argument where we censor ideas and conversations in order not to offend others. Meanwhile Liam Duffy’s essay, titled Don’t Do Anything I Say in This Song: Countering Extremism with Candour, Not Censorship, is an interesting insight into how government works. He argues that there is a “complacency and cavalier attitude to freedom of expression” among those who deal with counter extremism with “concerns over free speech too often dismissed as being advanced with cynical motivations”.
Our very own editor-at-large Martin Bright’s essay, which you can read here, looks at the challenges journalists face when reporting on extremism and community relations.
Hopefully government ministers will read these essays before the end of the summer break and reflect on whether they have got the balance right in the UK.
29 Jul 2025 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features
On the eve of 23 March 2025, hours after stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra released a video titled Naya Bharat (New India), dozens of members of a right-wing ruling party of Maharashtra barged in and vandalised the Habitat comedy club where the show was performed.
The workers, who represented a faction of Shiv Sena, a right-wing Marathi regional political party in India, alleged that the comedian made fun of their party leader and the deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Eknath Shinde.
Kamra, in his show, sang a song referencing the word gaddar or traitor. The song did not name anyone directly, but its lyrics referenced Shinde’s separation from his party in 2022 and allying with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Shiv Sena spokesperson Krishna Hegde urged Mumbai police to arrest Kamra, lock him up behind bars, and open a case against him as his jokes insulted the people of Maharashtra.
After the event, a First Information Report (which initiates a potential criminal case) was filed against Kamra. He was later granted bail. The police also arrested a number of Shiv Sena party members who were also granted bail by a Mumbai court.
The attack on Kamra is just the latest instance of comedians in India being targeted and penalised simply for telling jokes and using satire. More broadly, it reflects an ongoing assault on freedom of speech, especially when it challenges the moral framework upheld by dominant political groups.
Responding to the threats against him, Kamra issued a statement saying, “Attacking a venue for a comedian’s words is as senseless as overturning a lorry carrying tomatoes, because you didn’t like the butter chicken you were served.”
He added, “I don’t fear this mob & I will not be hiding hide under my bed, waiting for this to die down.”
The incident at the popular Habitat club comes amid a spate of attacks against comedians in India. All highlight that while their humour may push boundaries or tackle bold themes for their audience, there’s only so much room for expression in a space where jokes are heavily scrutinised and the repercussions for comedians are severe.
Radhika Vaz, a stand-up comedian, highlights that freedom of expression can’t have any limits and there is an urgent need to protect it.
“We are at the lowest ebb. Comedians do not hold the same power that a politician does in terms of being able to influence police and judicial movement. It is not a fair fight. This is truly a David and Goliath situation, and the Goliaths should all be ashamed,” she said.
Vaz points out that censorship is not new to India. Writers, filmmakers, artists, and journalists have long been muffled, she says, but what has changed is the public complicity. “We, the public, should be held responsible because we only care when it is our team that is being censored. Freedom of expression can’t have any limits, and it certainly can’t be convenient.”
Growing censorship
What happened with Kamra is not just an isolated incident in the Indian stand-up comedy scene. Just a few weeks back, Samay Raina, who hosted a show titled India’s Got Latent, which featured a different set of judges in every episode, also faced severe backlash. The show has a huge audience in India and is infamous for its risqué humour.
The joke, made by one of the judges and India’s famous podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia, otherwise known as BeerBiceps, led to filing of multiple police reports against him and other show judges, a visit by Mumbai police to Allahabadia’s house, and also the removal of the video from YouTube based on a request by a member of India’s National Human Rights Commission.
Back in 2021, comedians Kunal Kamra and Munawar Faruqui were forced to cancel several shows across different cities after right-wing groups threatened violence and state authorities declined to provide security. That same year, Vir Das faced political backlash for his satirical poem Two Indias, performed during a show in the USA, which critics accused of tarnishing India’s reputation abroad.
Earlier in 2021, Munawar Faruqui was arrested in Indore before even performing, accused of making offensive jokes about Hindu Gods.
In 2020, Agrima Joshua became the target of death and rape threats after a stand-up video surfaced where she was alleged to have mocked the revered 17th century ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji. In reality, Joshua’s jokes had critiqued exaggerated claims about a planned Shivaji statue on Quora, not the historical figure himself, though she was well within her rights in either case.
Going back further, in 2016, Tanmay Bhat from Mumbai-based comedy collective All India Bakchod (AIB) drew criticism after a Snapchat spoof involving Indian legends Lata Mangeshkar and Sachin Tendulkar, which offended some sections of the public. The previous year, AIB had faced a barrage of FIRs for a roast event, where the use of profanity was labelled a threat to Indian cultural values.
Manjeet Sarkar, a stand-up comedian, says he never feels safe on stage when he performs political or critical material.
“It’s not about Kunal Kumra, it was always there. Journalists are doing the story now because the Kunal Kamra situation is happening. For comedians like me, who aren’t in the same position as Kunal Kamra, we have felt this for a long time,” he said.
He added that stand-up comedy as an art form talks about the current realities of the country.
“If a particular democracy is doing well, the jokes would reflect that. If not, they’ll reflect what it is. Comedians don’t do it because they want to be activists; it is because they are being true to the art,” he said.
A shrinking space for dissent
The situation for comedians mirrors the broader erosion of democratic space in India. According to a recent paper published in the Journal of Asian and African Studies by Abdul Fahad and Siti Mustafa, stand-up comedy has increasingly stepped into the role that traditional mainstream media once occupied: challenging the government, critiquing societal norms, and raising uncomfortable questions.
In a media landscape where many outlets now function as “government public relations” rather than independent watchdogs, comedians like Kunal Kamra, Vir Das, and Varun Grover have become some of the few remaining critical voices. The paper notes that these comedians “use humour to address sensitive topics, empowering audiences to engage with critical political issues,” making comedy a powerful tool for free expression beyond the reach of traditional media censorship.
But this visibility comes at a cost. As Fahad and Mustafa document, comedians in India today face serious risks: legal harassment, threats of violence, show cancellations, and loss of income.
Threats and economic retaliation are not just random acts; they are often orchestrated. Government supporters and political loyalists regularly organise social media campaigns to discredit and intimidate comedians. Sarkar highlights how platforms, too, play a role in censorship: “Social media platforms shadow-ban people like me. If they put people in jail, it’ll be hard to reach audiences, right?”
Meanwhile, the government is using incidents like Kamra’s to justify further tightening of digital spaces under the guise of “protection”. The new Digital Personal Data Protection law, critics argue, could make online dissent even riskier by giving authorities broader powers to monitor and restrict speech.
The broader message is clear: artists who mock, critique, or even simply question dominant narratives do so at their own peril.
Hope, resistance, and an uncertain future
Despite the risks, comedians are not giving up. They continue to find ways to speak, sometimes more subtly, sometimes more defiantly, pushing back against an environment that increasingly demands silence.
“I guess I look at countries with better standards and hope that by chipping away we can one day walk amongst them,” Vaz said, adding with a wry laugh, “maybe in 100 years.”
For Sarkar, change must come from those with privilege. “The most privileged in our society should push back, because they can afford to,” he said. “Until there is a shift in their awareness, it’s going to keep going in this direction. It will eventually impact them too – and that’ll be the funniest moment.”
The research by Fahad and Mustafa also underlines this need for solidarity. They suggest that alliances among comedians, other artists, and civil society can create pockets of resistance that protect free expression. Comedy, after all, thrives on community, and its survival may depend on collective defence against growing censorship.
In the meantime, the stakes for telling a joke in India have never been higher. What was once considered harmless or even patriotic satire is now treated as sedition in all but name. “We cannot attack or accost any journalist for what they’ve said,” Vaz warned. “We cannot attack or accost a comedian for a joke they made. Both deserve to be protected by the law of the country.”
As India’s democracy becomes increasing authoritarianism, comedians find themselves unlikely warriors for free speech. Armed only with a mic and a sharp sense of humour, they continue to stand on stage and say the things others dare not, even as the space to laugh – and to dissent – keeps shrinking.
The Winter 2023 issue of Index on Censorship, Having the last laugh, looked at how comedy is being censored around the world. Explore the issue now.
24 Jun 2025 | Americas, El Salvador, News and features, Newsletters
“They won’t silence me. I want a public trial!” shouted prominent human rights lawyer Ruth Eleonora López, a Bible clutched in her hands, as she stood outside a courtroom earlier this month in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador. López is accused of illegal enrichment, a charge she and her lawyers flatly deny. Her arrest is more likely down to her role uncovering alleged government corruption and human rights violations.
López’s case is just the tip of the iceberg. Dissent is being crushed under President Nayib Bukele. In the past two months alone, a second lawyer critical of Bukele has been arrested, as have a pastor and a lawyer who were peacefully protesting outside the Los Sueños residential area, where Bukele lives; several journalists from leading investigative news outlet El Faro – who spoke to us in 2020– have fled the country fearing their own arrest, days after a story was published claiming links between the government and a gang; the head of a bus company who resisted offering transport for free reportedly died in custody; and a “foreign agents” law was passed, which will introduce a 30% tax on all overseas donations received by Salvadoran independent media outlets and human rights groups.
Bukele was first elected in 2019. Since then he has overridden the constitution so that the presidency can go beyond a single term. He has done away with routine checks and balances and now controls all three branches of government. In 2022 he declared a state of emergency (extended 35 times), which has seen human rights traded for so-called national security. Around 110,000 people (1.7% of El Salvador’s population) are currently imprisoned – the highest incarceration rate in the world – locked up to apparently tackle gang violence. Except many inmates have not been convicted of any crime at all, fuelling suspicions that imprisonment is being used to crush dissent. In 2023, former national security advisor Alejandro Muyshondt publicly accused Bukele of corruption. He was taken into custody, where he later died at age 46.
Unsurprisingly dozens of lawyers, academics and human rights defenders have joined journalists in fleeing the country.
Bukele boasts about being the world’s “coolest dictator” and has a fan in the figure of Donald Trump (the new Salvadoran mega-prison houses migrants from the USA). His social media accounts – followed by millions – contain a mix of policy announcements, one-upmanship and threats. On his X profile this week, he reposted a global leader approval ranking that placed him at the top. Is he that popular? It’s hard to know. Crime is down under him, but whether that’s actually because of him is contested. Clearly though El Salvador is only safe for those who bite their tongue, which means it isn’t safe at all.
