30 Jan 2017 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Letters, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Ilgar Mammadov
Azerbaijani opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov was jailed in 2013. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in May 2014 that Mammadov’s arrest and continued detention was in retaliation for criticising the country’s government.
Mammadov is a leader of the Republican Alternative Movement (REAL), which he launched in 2009, and is one of Azerbaijan’s rare dissenting political voices. He was sentenced to seven years in prison after participating in an anti-government protest rally in Ismayilli, a town 200 kilometers outside Baku. Authorities arrested him on trumped-up charges of inciting the protest with the use of violence. Mammadov had previously announced his intent to run for president. Mammadov remains in jail, despite the Council of Europe repeatedly calling for his release. Azerbaijan may be expelled from the council as the country repeatedly refuses to comply with the organization’s requests. John Kirby, spokesman of the US Department of State, also called on Azerbaijan to drop all charges against Mammadov. Reports in November 2015 emerged stating that Mammadov had been tortured by prison officials, which resulted in serious injuries including broken teeth. Mammadov has remained very vocal during his time in jail, writing on his blog about political developments in Azerbaijan and refusing to write a letter asking for pardon from President Ilham Aliyev.
The following is a letter written by Ilgar Mammadov:
International investment in fossil fuel extraction is making me and other Azerbaijani political prisoners hostages to the Aliyev regime.
A thirst for freedom.
Azerbaijan has seen a crackdown on any political dissent over the past few years, with dozens of activists and critics of the regime in Baku going behind bars. So far, there’s little sign of improvement.
Though respectful of the memory of Nelson Mandela, the mass media have occasionally shed light on the late South African leader’s warm relationship with scoundrels such as Muammar Qaddafi and Fidel Castro, as well as his refusal to defend Chinese dissidents. These events have been evoked to invite critical thinking about an iconic figure and balance his place in history.
Most readers of these articles judge a figure they previously held as an idol as hypocritical or tainted. They do not ask questions about the roots of a particular contradiction. In the case of Mandela, the dictators above had supported the anti-apartheid struggle of the African National Congress, while several established democracies indulged the inhuman system of apartheid because of the diamond, oil and other industries, and particularly because of the Cold War.
After only four years in prison, even on bogus charges and a politically motivated sentence, I am nowhere near Mandela in terms of symbolising a cause of global significance. Republicanism in my country, Azerbaijan — where the internationally promoted father-to-son succession of absolute power has disillusioned millions — is hardly comparable to the fight against racial segregation. Still, I can, better than many others, explain the flawed international attitudes that help keep democrats locked in the prisons of the “clever autocrats” who are, in turn, courted by retrograde forces within today’s democracies.
I will tell the story of how plans for a giant pipeline that would suck gas from Azerbaijan to Italy, the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC), impacts on Azerbaijan’s political prisoners.
In this letter I will focus only on one tension of the struggle we face here in Azerbaijan — between our democratic aspirations that enjoy only a nominal solidarity abroad, and the attempt to build a de facto monarchy which receives comprehensive support from foreign interest groups.
To be precise, I will tell the story of how plans for a giant pipeline that would suck gas from Azerbaijan to Italy, the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC), impacts on Azerbaijan’s political prisoners.
I will tell the story by discussing my own case. But before I tell it, you need to know what the Southern Gas Corridor is and why my release is crucial for the morale of our democratic forces. Indeed, Council of Europe officials say my freedom is essential for the entire architecture of protection under the European Convention of Human Rights, but there is still no punishment of my jailer.
What is the Southern Gas Corridor?
The Southern Gas Corridor is a multinational piece of gas infrastructure worth $43 billion US dollars. It is designed to extract and pump 16 billion cubic metres of natural gas every year from 2018, sucking hydrocarbons from Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz gas field to European and Turkish markets. The EU, Turkey, and the US are all eager to connect the pipeline to Turkmenistan so that to an extra 20-30 billion cubic metres of Turkmen gas can be added to the scheme.
Hydrocarbon extraction is the mainstay of the country’s economy. Baku signed the “contract of the century” in 1994, and has attracted western oil and gas giants ever since.
The significance of the SGC is twofold. First, the project could provide up to 8-10% of EU’s gas imports, thus reducing the union’s dependence on Russia. Secondly, it will become another platform for geopolitical access (Russians would use a slightly ominous word “penetration”) of the west to Central Asia.
How did SGC encourage more repression?
Any rational democratic government in Baku would opt for the SGC without much debate and then turn its attention to issues truly important for Azerbaijan’s sustainable economic development. The revenue generated by the project would not be viewed as vital for the country when compared to the country’s economic potential in a less monopolised and more competition-based economy.
However, since the moment when a Russian government plane took Ilham Aliyev’s barely breathing father from a Turkish military hospital to the best clinic in America, in order to smooth the transition of power, the absolute ruler of Azerbaijan has been trained to deal with great powers first and then use such deals to repress domestic political dissent second. He has kept the country’s economy almost exclusively based on selling oil and gas and importing everything else.
Recently, Aliyev has been trying to present the SGC as his generous gift to the west so that governments will not talk about human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan. At one point Aliyev was even considering unilaterally funding the entire project.
Since 2013, Aliyev has instigated an unprecedented wave of attacks on civil society, which he used to illustrate the seriousness of his ambition for energy cooperation with the west.
In the middle of this tug of war, Azerbaijan suddenly found itself short of money due to falling oil prices. It could not fund its share in the parts of SGC that ran through Turkey (TANAP) and Greece, Albania and Italy (TAP) without backing from four leading international financial institutions — the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, World Bank and Asian Development Bank.
During 2016, these institutions said their backing was subject to Azerbaijan’s compliance with the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI). In September, Riccardo Puliti, director on energy and natural resources at the EBRD, cited the resumption of the EITI membership of Azerbaijan as “the main factor” for the prospect of approval of funds for TANAP/TAP.
Together with EIB, EBRD wants to cover US $2.16 billion out of the total US $8.6 billion cost of the TANAP. TAP will cost US $6.2 billion.
What is the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative?
The EITI is a joint global initiative of governments, extractive industries, and local and international civil society organisations that aims, inter alia, to verify the amount of natural resources extracted by (mostly international) corporations and how much of the latters’ revenue is shared with host states. Its purpose, in that respect, is to safeguard transnational businesses from future claims that they have ransacked a developing nation — for instance, by sponsoring a political regime unfriendly to civil society and principle freedoms.
In April 2015, because of the unprecedented crackdown on civil society during 2013-2014, the EITI Board lowered the status of Azerbaijan in the initiative from “member” to “candidate”. This move, alongside falling oil prices, complicated funding for the Southern Gas Corridor. International backers were reluctant to be associated with the poor ethics of implementing energy projects in a country where already fragmented liberties were degenerating even further.
Hence, during 2016, several governments, especially the US, put strong political pressure on Azerbaijan. This resulted in a minor retreat by the dictatorship. Some interest groups claimed at the EITI board that this was “progress”.
The EITI board assembled on 25 October to review Azerbaijan’s situation. I appealed to the board ahead of its meeting.
Why did my appeal matter?
My appeal was heard primarily because, until I was arrested in March 2013, I was a member of the Advisory Board of what is now the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), a key international civil society segment of EITI.
In addition to my status within the EITI, the circumstances of my case — which was unusually embarrassing for the authorities — also played a role:
i) The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had established that the true reason behind the 12 court decisions (by a total of 19 judges) for my arrest and continued detention was the wish of the authorities “to silence me” for criticising the government;
ii) The US embassy in Azerbaijan had spent an immense amount of man-hours observing all 30 sessions of my trial during five months in a remote town and concluded: “the verdict was not based on evidence, and was politically motivated”;
iii) The European Parliament’s June 2013 resolution, which carried my name in its title, had called for my immediate and unconditional release — a call reiterated in the next two EP resolutions of 2014 and 2015 on human rights situation in Azerbaijan;
iv) Since December 2014, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had adopted eight (now nine) resolutions and decisions specifically on my case whereby it insisted on urgent release in line with the ECHR judgment.
Due to an onslaught by civil society partners during the 25 October debate, the EITI Board refused to return Azerbaijan its “member” status.
Indecision in America
I am very much obliged to the US embassy for conducting the hard labour of trial observation, but the US government representative’s stance at the EITI board meeting in October was a surprising disappointment.
Mary Warlick, the representative of the US government, insisted that Azerbaijan has made progress worth of being rewarded by EITI membership. Obviously, she was speaking for that part of the US government that wants the SGC pipeline to be built at any cost to our freedom.
A month later, in a counter-balancing act, John Kirby, spokesman of the US Department of State, called on Azerbaijan to drop all charges against me.
Samantha Power’s Facebook posting of my family photo on 10 December, the International day of Human Rights, was also touching. Power is US Permanent Representative at UN. Two years ago, she already mentioned my case in the EITI context at a conference.
Complementing her kindness, around the same time Christopher Smith, Chairman of the Helsinki Commission of the US Congress, in an interview about fresh draconian laws restricting free speech in Azerbaijan, repeated his one year old call for my release.
Yet, on 15 December, Amos Hochstein, US State Department’s Special Envoy on Energy, assured the authorities in Baku that “regardless of any political changes, the US will remain committed to its obligations under the SGC”.
Indecision in Europe
I could set out a similar pattern of European hesitation beginning with my first days in jail.
To be concise, though, let me recall only the fact that on 20 September (the same day that Rodrigo Duterte called the European Parliament “hypocritical” for its criticism of the extra-judicial executions in Philippines), a conciliatory delegation of the EP in Baku not only agreed to hear a lecture from Ilham Aliyev on “[EP] President Martin Schultz and his deputy Lubarek being enemies of the people of Azerbaijan”, but even praised the lecture as a “constructive one”, in the words of Sajjad Karim, the British MEP who had led the delegation.
Political prisoners of Azerbaijan are not worth the amount of money involved in the SGC, but European values probably are.
The aforementioned three resolutions of the European Parliament were thus crossed out as I observed from behind bars.
Two presidents of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council Of Europe (PACE) have visited me in prison, but this only highlighted the irrelevance of the body to the situation on the ground. They never stopped talking of how constructive or how ongoing their dialogue with the Azerbaijani authorities has been.
New threats
Our narrow win at the EITI Board exposes us to two new threats. (I do not discuss here the extraneous threats, which may originate from, for example, rising oil prices or collapse of the nuclear deal with Iran, i.e. anything adding confidence or bargaining power to the regime in Baku.)
One is that at the next EITI board meeting in March 2017, those driven by pressing commodity and geopolitical interests may outnumber or otherwise outpower the civil society party. If Ilham Aliyev proceeds with his cosmetic, fig leaf “reforms” or releases those political prisoners who have already pleaded for pardon or surrendered in any other way, the probability of my freedom being sacrificed will arise again.
The other threat is that instead of battling at the EITI, those interest groups may ask the international financial institutions to disconnect the SGC loans from Azerbaijan’s compliance with the EITI. These institutions are easier to convince as they are full of short-termist bank executives, rather than civil society activists concerned with the rule of law, transparency and public accountability.
The second scenario may already be in effect as rumours suggest that the World Bank has endorsed a US $800m loan to the TANAP. If so, then the postponed energy consultations between Baku and Brussels at the end of January may put the loans back on the EITI-friendly track. Political prisoners of Azerbaijan are not worth of the amount of money involved in the SGC, but European values probably are.
Deep jail horizon
Of 11 other members of the ruling body of my civic movement, REAL, three had to flee the country after my arrest, two were jailed (for 1.5 years and one month on charges not related to my case), two are not permitted to travel abroad (again on separate cases); one of them cannot even leave Baku.
From time to time, activists spend days under administrative detention designed to scare others. Nonetheless, we live in a world different from the one which tolerated and even fed apartheid.
Mandela’s fight promoted an agenda and international institutions where we can defend the values of freedom from encroachment by dictators and their business partners. This is why we should not consider the means of resisting oppression or seeking solidarity with other international arrangements any less conventional now. The problem is that when others see that our peaceful efforts are not fruitful, they turn to more radical means to end injustice.
*Mary Warlick is married to James Warlick, US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group mediating in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Therefore, initially I guessed that by being nice to the regime she might have tried to make her husband’s relations with the official Baku easier. But in mid-November, James Warlick announced his resignation from the post, apparently as he had planned, and my guess turned out to be mistaken.[/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:1485781328870-cb0adaa0-0682-7″ taxonomies=”7145″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
24 Jan 2017 | Albania, Belarus, Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, News and features, Sweden, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Each week, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project verifies threats, violations and limitations faced by the media throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Here are five recent reports that give us cause for concern.
On 18 January a Turkish court ordered the arrest of three journalists on charges of “membership in an armed terror group,” T24 reported.
These journalists include Ömer Çelik, former news editor of DİHA daily; Tunca Öğreten, former editor of Diken news portal, and BirGün daily staff member Mahir Kanaat.
They were detained on 25 December 2016 with three others; Derya Okatan, managing editor for the ETHA news agency; DİHA reporter Metin Yoksu, and Yolculuk newspaper managing editor Eray Saygın.
After 24 days, the court ruled to release Yoksu, Sargın and Okatan on probation terms. Under the order they are barred from international travel and will have to regularly check in with their local police station.
Pre-trial custody can last up to 30 days under Turkey’s emergency rule, which was implemented on 20 July 2015 following a coup attempt.
On 25 December 2016, pro-government Sabah daily announced that the journalists would be detained in connection to email correspondence of Berat Albayrak, Turkey’s energy minister and the son-in-law of the country’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that were leaked to the media.
The arrests bring the number of journalists in Turkish prisons to 151.
The Gothenburg offices of Swedish public service TV and radio, SVT, were evacuated on Tuesday 10 January after a suspicious package containing white powder and written threats was sent to staff member Janne Josefsson, the broadcaster reported.
SVT reported that “the letter was opened and the contents spread on a coffee machine and stairs”.
SVT Chief Executive Hannah Stjärne commented on the incident: “This threat has disabled a socially important journalistic operation for several hours and is a blow to the open society which we must protect.”
Police have begun an investigation into the source of the threat. The powder was later found to be harmless.
Russian-Israeli blogger Aleksandr Lapshin was detained in Minsk on 15 January 2016, shortly after entering Belarus, Euroradio.fm reported. The detention was requested by Azerbaijan, which is seeking to have the blogger extradited.
Lapshin lives in Moscow and is wanted in Azerbaijan for visiting the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh and for criticising Azerbaijani policies on his blog.
A representative for Belarus’s Prosecutor General said it was studying Azerbaijan’s extradition request.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has called on Belorussian authorities to release the blogger without condition and allow him to return home.
Two media directors, Armand Shullaku and Alfred Lela, lost their jobs on 12 January after owners changed the “editorial orientation” of their outlets in favour of the government, ZeriaMerikas.es reported.
Shkullaku, who was the director of the news channel ABC News in Tirana, said his employment contract was not renewed for January 2017 and that he believed that the owner of the TV station changed its editorial line so that it now supports the government. “The owner told me that in his opinion, the channel needed a new managerial and editorial approach,” he said.
Lela, former director of the newspaper Mapo, said that the owner of the outlet had also declared his support for Prime Minister Edi Rama and that his contract, which ended on 31 December, was not renewed for that reason. “I was offered a new contract on condition I respected the new editorial affiliation and I refused,” he told Voice of America Albanian language service.
Lulzim Basha, the leader of the opposition Democratic Party, wrote on his Facebook page that the dismissal of these two journalists means businesses and media have joined the government against the people.
On 12 January an Istanbul Prosecutor asked for a nine-year sentence in the case of prominent journalist Hasan Cemal, reported Hurriyet Daily News.
Cemal is being charged for “making the propaganda of terrorist organisations” and “praising crime and criminals”.
On 1 September, 2016 Cemal was part of a group of nine editors who took part in the Editor For The Day campaign launched in support of the closed pro-Kurdish daily Özgür Gündemy, Bianet reported.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/
[/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:1485247537834-0f5818db-acf6-3″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
9 Jan 2017 | Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, News and features, Portugal
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Although not exposed to the perils that press freedom encounters in places such as Turkey or Hungary, experts in Portugal tell Mapping Media Freedom that journalists in the country live under a “subliminal” type of pressure that can lead to the deterioration of their work and their fundamental rights as media workers.
Most of this pressure, they say, is caused by low wages and endemic job insecurity.
“I can’t say that there’s a threat to freedom of the press such as the interference of political authorities or in the sense that a certain information is silenced, the risk of an attack like that happening is small,” says Carla Baptista, a professor at the communication sciences department of FCSH-UNL. “But there are factors that weaken journalism and journalists and which undermine their capacity to resist if and when those attacks strike.”
According to a study conducted between 2007 and 2014 by Observatório da Comunicação, more than 1,200 journalists — about 20% of the total of media workers — have either lost or left their jobs. This tendency has only but grown ever since, with layoffs taking place in newspapers such as Diário Económico (which later shutdown its paper and online edition at different stages in the early in 2016), Diário de Notícias, i, and Sol. Besides, all in 2016, newspapers Público and Expresso, and magazines Visão and Sábado, put forth voluntary redundancy programmes for journalists and other professionals.
In another study by João Miranda, a journalism researcher at Universidade de Coimbra, that was answered by 806 journalists, 56.3% earned less than €1,000 per month and 14.8% declared they were paid below minimum wage (€505) or nothing at all.
“The fact that so many journalists have no job security affects the way they regard their own activity. In some ways, this restricts the conditions under which freedom of the press exists in Portugal,” João Miranda tells Index.
Sofia Branco, president of the Portuguese Union of Journalists and a journalist at Lusa news agency, seconds his words. “This is not an average job, it has very concrete responsibilities. It’s hard to demand independence and autonomy from a journalist when he or she is working under such circumstances,” she adds.
Is pressure under-perceived?
In Miranda’s research, a total of 23.8% journalists said they felt pressured by their outlet’s board of directors and 26.2% said they felt the same coming from their editorial superiors. However, when asked whether this pressure was exerted with a commercial motivation or rather for political gain of third agents, Miranda recognised that his data “doesn’t go deep enough to assess that.”
“To be honest I think those numbers are too low”, Branco said of the approximately one quarter of journalists who complained of being pressured. “A lot of people are under pressure but don’t realise it. It’s a matter of perception. The pressure does exist and is there constantly, even it most of the times it’s just at a subliminal level.”
Although sensible to the challenges most Portuguese journalists deal with in their daily lives, Carla Baptista argues that “journalists also have to take responsibility”.
For this Lisbon-based researcher, the Portuguese media have failed to investigate the country’s authorities, to set the agenda, and also to serve their audience. “There are asymmetries in the way our society is reflected in the media. They are distanced from the problems of those who they should be talking to: young people, women, families, voters,” Baptista said.
In her view, the average Portuguese journalist looks as though he or she is “a factory worker in the assembly line who is feeding a stream of ready made news like the 19th century coalman would feed an industrial oven.”
First journalists’ congress in 19 years to be held in January
It is to look inside all of the above mentioned problems and to seek their solutions that the Portuguese Union of Journalists, alongside two other non-union journalistic associations, will hold the 4th Conference of Journalists from January 12th to the 15th — a much anticipated event since it last took place, in 1998. Its first edition dates back to 1982 and the second happened in 1986. In this year’s edition, a total of seven panels will discuss topics like the ethics of journalism, the working conditions of media professionals and the economical viability of the news media.
“The fact that the last time we all sat down to discuss our work as 19 years ago is unbelievable,” Branco points out. “This time, we can’t close the doors without having reached conclusions both to ourselves, to the the institutions we work for and to the government, too.”
Baptista feels less optimistic. “My fear is that this conference will reflect the anemia of most Portuguese journalists,” she says. “I think 2017 will be a very bad year for journalism in Portugal.”
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/
[/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:1483954255579-f41de8e9-b0bd-8″ taxonomies=”7679″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Dec 2016 | Magazine, Volume 45.04 Winter 2016
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” full_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1481647350516{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/magazine-cover-subhead.jpg?id=82616) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: contain !important;}”][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Governments that introduce bans on clothing and other forms of expression are sending a signal about their own lack of confidence” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
IF YOU HAVE to introduce laws telling your citizens that they are banned from wearing purple, sporting red velvet, or showing their knees, then, frankly, you are in trouble.
But again and again, when times get tough or leaders think they should be, governments tell their people what to wear, or more often, what not to wear.
“Dare to wear this,” they say, “and we will be down on you like a ton of bricks.” Why any government thinks this is going to improve their power, the economy or put their country on a better footing is a mystery. History suggests you never strike up a more profitable relationship with your people by removing the freedom to wear specific types of clothing or, conversely, telling everyone that they have to wear the same thing. We are either consumed by rebellion, or by dullness.
The Romans tried it with purple (only allowed for the emperor and his special friends). The Puritans tried it with gold and silver (just for the magistrates and a few highfaluting types). Right now the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran ban women from wearing anything but head-to-toe cover-ups along with a range of other limitations. In one frightening case in the past month there were calls via social media for a woman in Saudi Arabia to be killed because she went out shopping “uncovered” without a hijab or abaya. One tweet read: “Kill her and throw her corpse to the dogs.”
Banning any type of freedom of expression, often including free speech, or freedom of assembly, usually happens in times of national angst, economic downturn or crisis, when governments are not acting either in the interest of their people, or the national good. These are not healthy, confident nations, but nations that fear allowing their people to speak, act and think. And that fear can express itself in mandating or restricting types of expression. Generally, as with other restrictions on freedom found in the US First Amendment, enforcing such bans doesn’t sweep in a period of prosperity for countries that impose them.
At different points in world history governments have forced a small group of people to wear particular things, or tried to wipe out styles of clothing they did not approve of. In medieval Europe, for instance, non-Christians were, at certain periods, forced to wear badges such as stars or crescents as were Christians who refused to conform to a state religion, such as the Cathars. Forcing a particular badge or clothing to be worn sends a signal of exclusion. Those authorities are, by implication, saying to the majority that there is a difference in the status of the minority, and in doing so opening them up either to attack, or at least suspicion. Not much has changed between then and now. Historically groups that have been forced to wear some kind of badge or special outfit have then found themselves ostracised or physically attacked. The most obvious modern example is Jews being forced to wear yellow stars in Nazi Germany, but this is not the only time minorities have been legally forced to stand out from the crowd. In 2001 the Taliban ruled that Afghan Hindus had to wear a public label to signify they were non-Muslims. The intent of such actions are clear: to create tension.
The other side of this clothing coin is when clans, tribes or groups who choose to dress differently from the mainstream, for historical religious reasons, or even just because they follow a particular musical style, are persecuted because of that visual difference, because of what it stands for, or because they are seen as rebelling against authority. In some cases strict laws have been put in place to try and force change, in other cases certain people decide to take action. In 1746, for instance, the British government banned kilts and tartans (except for the military) under the Dress Act, a reaction said to be motivated by support for rebellions to return Catholic (Stuart) monarchs to the British throne. Those who ignored the order faced six months in prison for the first instance, and seven years deportation for the second. Those who wear distinctive, and traditional clothing, out of choice can face other disadvantages. For years, the Oromo people in Ethiopia, who wear distinctive clothing, have long faced discrimination, but in 2016 dozens of Oromo people were killed at a religious festival, after police fired bullets into the crowd. And in her article Eliza Vitri Handayani reports on how the punk movement in Indonesia has attracted animosity and in one case, Indonesian police seized 64 punks, shaved their heads and forced them to bathe in a river to “purify themselves”. Recently the Demak branch of Nadhlatul Ulama, Indonesia’s largest Islamic organisation, has banned reggae and punk concerts because they make young people “dress weird”.
Another cover for restrictions or bans stems from religions. As soon as the word “modesty” is bandied around as a reason for somebody to be prohibited from wearing something then you know you have to worry. Strangely, it is never the person who proclaims that there needs to be a bit more modesty who needs to change their ways. Of course not. It is other people who need to get a lot more modest. The inclusion of modesty standards tends to be used to get women to cover up more than they have done.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”When freedom of expression is quashed, it usually finds a way of squeezing out just to show that the spirit is not vanquished” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Then you get officious types who decide that they have the measure of morality, and start hitting women wearing short skirts (as is happening right now in South Africa and Uganda). For some Ugandan women it feels like a return to the 1970s under dictator Idi Amin “morality” laws.
Trans people can find themselves confronting laws, sometimes centuries old, that lay out what people shouldn’t be allowed to wear. In Guyana a case continues to edge through the court of appeal this year, it argues that a cross-dressing law from 1893 allows the police to arrest or harass trans people. A new collection, the Museum of Transology, which opens in London in January, uses a crowdsourced collection of objects and clothing to chart modern trans life and its conflicts with the mainstream, from a first bra to binders.
When freedom of expression is quashed, it usually finds a way of squeezing out just to show that the spirit is not vanquished. So during the tartan ban in the 18th century, there are tales of highlanders hiding a piece of tartan under other clothes to have it blessed at a Sunday service. And certainly tartan and plaids are plentiful in Scotland today. In the 1930s and 40s when British women and girls were not “expected” to wear trousers or shorts, some bright spark designed a split skirt that could be worn for playing sport. It looked like a short dress (therefore conforming to the accepted code), but they were split like shorts allowing girls to run around with some freedom.
While in Iran, where rules about “modest” dress are enforced viciously with beatings, sales of glitzy high heels go through the roof. No one can stop those women showing the world their personal style in any way they can. Iranian model and designer Tala Raassi, who grew up in Iran, has written about how vital those signs of style are to Iranian women. In a recent article, commenting on the recent burkini ban in France, Raassi wrote of her disappointment that a democratic country would force an individual to put on or take of a piece of clothing. She added: “Freedom is not about the amount of clothing you put on or take off, but about having the choice to do so.”
And that freedom is the clearest sign of a healthy country. We must support the freedom for individuals to make choices, even if we do not agree with them personally. The freedom to be different, if one chooses to be, must not be punished by some kind of lower status or ostracism. National leaders have to learn that taking away freedom of expression from their people is a sign of their failure. Countries with the most freedom are the ones that will historically be seen as the most successful politically, economically and culturally.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachael Jolley is the editor of Index on Censorship magazine. She recently won the editor of the year (special interest) at British Society of Magazine Editors’ 2016 awards
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”86201″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422016643039″][vc_custom_heading text=”T-shirted turmoil” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422016643039|||”][vc_column_text]April 2016
Vicky Baker looks at why slogan shirts are more than a fashion statement and sometimes provoke fear within great state machines.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89180″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064220600624127″][vc_custom_heading text=”Miniskirts” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064220600624127|||”][vc_column_text]February 2006
Salil Tripathi believes the press should not pick and choose what to publish based on who will get offended. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”90622″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228908536934″][vc_custom_heading text=”List to the right ” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228908536934|||”][vc_column_text]July 2001
UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 is further evidence of the government’s indifference to fundamental freedoms – clothing included.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][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%2F2016%2F12%2Ffashion-rules%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/2016/12/fashion-rules/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][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.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
