3 Jan 2025 | Iran, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria, Turkey
Three days before the start of the battle to oust Bashar al-Assad, a Syrian political figure I trust for his insights and analysis called me. With my 18 years of experience in journalism, his words carried weight to me. “The Assad era is officially over in Syria,” he declared.
Wael al-Khalidi, the leading Syrian opposition figure, told me: “We will return to Syria. Be certain that the moment the revolutionaries enter Aleppo, they will advance to every Syrian city, and Assad will fall.”
Hearing such news, and thinking about reporting it to the world, was monumental for me. It was 11pm on 7 December when the Syrian revolutionaries began entering Damascus. Personally, I was physically exhausted from days of sleepless work covering the rebels’ advances against Assad’s regime, but their proximity to Damascus gave me renewed strength.
I will never forget the historic moment when I posted on Facebook at 1.30am on 8 December: “Al-Assad has fled, Syrians!” I believe I was the first to break this news, ahead of any major media outlet in the world.
At that moment, I remembered my father, who was killed by the Syrian regime in 2012 when an airstrike hit our home. My father was an elderly, unarmed man. Overwhelmed with emotion, I wept with joy as the dictator Bashar Al-Assad fell. These feelings are indescribable, known only to Syrians who have endured 54 years of suffering under this regime, deprived of the simplest rights and subjected to all forms of killing.
In Syria, journalism was limited to writing only about the leader’s achievements. Criticism was forbidden, and one had to be a member of the Ba’ath Party to speak about accomplishments of both the party and its leader.
When the Syrian revolution began, I worked as an editor for a magazine focused on entertainment news. Frequently meeting with Syrian artists, I found myself in a real predicament: how could we praise Bashar al-Assad while innocent blood was being shed in the streets? I decided to leave journalism and work at a local food restaurant. Later, I fled Damascus for my hometown, Idlib, where I resumed journalism, documenting the violations committed by the Syrian regime and other factions during that period.
Unfortunately, at the time, the jihadist group Jabhat Al-Nusra sought to impose its control on Idlib by force. My writings criticising them openly led to my imprisonment by them. Later, they demanded I leave the country, so I fled to Turkey and continued my journalistic work.
In Turkey, journalism was relatively safe until certain restrictions began to emerge. Suddenly, I was arrested, accused of producing reports critical of Iran’s actions in Syria, with allegations that Israel was funding me. My time in Turkish prison felt absurd to both me and my defence attorney: reporting news is not espionage. The charge was collaborating with Israel against Iran in Syria: a regrettable accusation. I emphasised during my trial that I viewed Iran, Hezbollah, the Assad regime, and Israel as criminals. Eventually, I was acquitted.
Today, Syria faces a challenging phase requiring the media to play its role as the voice of people long silenced under a one-sided dictatorial narrative. We need free, independent Syrian media that competes with major global outlets. It’s not impossible.
Sadly, even weeks after the fall of the Syrian regime, there is a noticeable absence of an official Syrian media outlet addressing the Syrian audience. The country faces media chaos, where outlets and social media influencers depict events irresponsibly and unethically.
Syria needs more workshops to train journalists on professional ethics and innovative approaches, breaking away from the norms imposed for decades.
I am planning to take a significant risk: returning to Syria to launch an independent media project. This initiative aims to amplify the voices of people, addressing their concerns and struggles through a team of young Syrian men and women who believe in a free, independent Syria that respects its neighbours and the global community.
It is a big gamble, and I am fully aware of the dangers of returning to my country after a decade of absence. But with the risks, I carry dreams of finally writing freely in a liberated homeland.
19 Dec 2024 | News and features, Newsletters
Hello, readers. This will be our final newsletter before Index wraps up for the holiday season. It’s been quite the year for freedom of expression, and whilst it’s not easy to summarise in one email, we’ve had a go. We’ve seen severe violations by repressive governments – but we’ve also seen remarkable acts of defiance by political activists, journalists and protesters.
These acts of defiance leave room for hope. In Russia, the year started with the suspicious death of Alexei Navalny whilst in detention, arguably Vladimir Putin’s most vocal critic (you can read an obituary by journalist John Sweeney here). But it was then punctuated with the release of opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza in a prisoner swap in August, after relentless campaigning led by his wife, Evgenia, who we ultimately awarded in this year’s Freedom of Expression Awards.
Another huge win for international protest was the release of Iranian political activist Toomaj Salehi in December, following his death sentence being overturned in June. Of course, there are many activists who remain behind bars and Index will continue to campaign for their release. Dozens of pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong – the Hong Kong 47 – were given harsh prison sentences of between four and 10 years in November, whilst prominent Chinese #MeToo activist (and previous Index award winner) Sophia Huang Xueqin was sentenced to five years in June. British-Egyptian political activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah was also denied freedom, even after serving his five-year jail term.
Throughout the year, we’ve seen media workers and independent reporting targeted in the most pernicious ways, including through targeted murder, particularly in war zones such as Gaza. Palestine has now become the most dangerous place to be a journalist, and you can read Al Jazeera English journalist Youmna El Sayed’s first-hand account on the risks of covering the conflict here. Meanwhile, media workers in Sudan face similar threats and persecution with seldom international attention, in what has been described as the “forgotten war”.
Alongside the brave pursuits of journalists, regular citizens have also stood up to their governments – with varying degrees of success. Alleged fraudulent elections in Georgia, Mozambique and Venezuela have caused the public to take to the streets in defiance of corruption. Whilst peaceful protests have resulted in violent crackdowns, there is cause for hope: a citizen-led democratic activism project in Venezuela was used to capture accurate voting tallies, and could prove to be a blueprint for fighting election fraud globally in the future, reported Martin Bright. And who could forget South Korea’s “no worries if not!” moment – when president Yoon Suk Yeol’s attempt at enforcing martial law was shut down within six hours thanks to mass assembly.
As we approach 2025, an uncertain future awaits. Repressive laws in Afghanistan have caused it to become the world’s most silenced nation, particularly for women, who under terrifying Taliban morality laws can no longer speak in public. Next year, will the international community stand up for women in the country and rally against what human rights groups are calling “gender apartheid”?
In the USA, a second Trump presidency could also bring with it a chilling impact on free expression, particularly for minority groups. You can read Emma Briant’s fascinating piece on the potential effect on university free thought in the “Land of Liberty” here. Meanwhile, the overthrowing of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s repressive regime means thousands of political dissidents have been liberated from the dictator’s inhumane prisons – but what could a future rebel-run regime really mean for the country’s freedoms?
We’ll be back in January. In the meantime, do make sure you read our latest magazine issue, Unsung Heroes: How musicians are raising their voices against oppression. If you’d like to subscribe, we have a special offer running until 3 January – you can enjoy 30% off an annual digital subscription by using the discount code Winter24 at checkout here, meaning it costs just £12.60.
Wishing you all a restful break, and hopefully a brighter 2025.
10 Dec 2024 | News and features, Statements, United Kingdom
- Leading human rights KC, Phillippa Kaufmann, urges Ofcom to review landmark European Court of Human Rights judgment which established that a “statutory requirement to decrypt communications” was not lawful
- Opinion warns that service providers can not be compelled to breach UK GDPR and compromise users’ cybersecurity
- Index on Censorship criticises Ofcom’s inadequate ‘passing references’ to users’ privacy rights and warns of legal battles if draft guidance on encryption is not updated
Index on Censorship has published a legal opinion from Phillippa Kaufmann KC and Aidan Wills (both of Matrix Chambers) in response to Ofcom’s characterisation of End-to-End Encryption (‘E2EE’) as a risk factor in their Draft Guidance on online harms.
Ofcom has been tasked with implementing the Online Safety Act since 2023 and to explain how technology companies must fulfil their duty of care to users of their online services. The regulations Ofcom has drafted will go before Parliament early next year and require a careful balance between keeping people safe online while respecting individual privacy.
Index on Censorship, as well as a host of civil society organisations who submitted consultation responses on the regulations, have highlighted the regulator’s failure to recognise the benefits of using encrypted communication technologies to users’ privacy and security online.
Ofcom has implied that service providers should weaken encryption on their messaging services to mitigate risks of illegal harms. This is despite the fact that encryption of personal data is a measure that may be taken to comply with the human rights and cybersecurity requirements outlined in the legal opinion. Ofcom should outline the benefits of encryption expressly and clearly in their guidance.
CEO of Index on Censorship, Jemimah Steinfeld said:
“Index has published censored writers across the globe since 1972. Today, we’re using encrypted messaging apps to keep in touch with our network of correspondents around the world, from Iran, to Afghanistan, to Hong Kong.
We are disappointed that Ofcom has failed to properly consider human rights and practical implications in its approach to encryption. This legal opinion confirms there is inadequate consideration of how their draft guidance could undermine the security protections that millions of people rely on every day. Ofcom should revise its guidance before it’s too late, or face a wave of costly and time-consuming legal challenges in the years ahead.
We are calling on Ofcom (and if necessary, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle) to:
- update guidance to reflect the Podchasov v Russia (Feb 2024) ruling – specifically that requiring encryption to be weakened for all users violates Article 8 rights;
- expand guidance beyond just “passing references” to provide “more detailed consideration of the human rights implications of service providers taking any measures which may weaken encryption.””
The legal opinion (which can be consulted below) was sought from expert human rights and technology barristers as Index on Censorship feared there is insufficient weight given to privacy and data protection laws in Ofcom’s draft guidance. Without encrypted communication services, journalists, their sources, and political dissidents across the world, for whom security is essential, will be negatively impacted.
Phillippa Kaufmann KC and Aidan Wills have explained the legal railguards of how content moderation regulation can operate next year when the OSA comes into force. Service providers in the scope of regulation are advised:
- When mitigating risks, they must (as per s 22 of the OSA), have particular regard to service users’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy (including data rights); and can only implement measures if they are “proportionate” (as set out in Podchasov v Russia)
- They must comply with UK GDPR which can include processing personal data “in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data”, and to “implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk”.
