19 Dec 2024 | News, 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.
17 Dec 2024 | Afghanistan, Argentina, Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Magazine Contents, Music, Nigeria, Palestine, Russia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Volume 53.04 Winter 2024
Contents
10 Dec 2024 | News, 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”.
6 Dec 2024 | Georgia, Iran, News, Newsletters, South Korea, United Kingdom
Protests have the power to rally people, express objection to political decisions, and in the most successful cases, elicit change. They are a fundamental form of self expression, and a crucial mechanism of any democracy. This week, we saw South Koreans take to the streets to protest President Yoon Suk Yeol’s shock move to impose martial law, which temporarily placed the military in charge and suspended many civilian rights, including the right to protest.
The move was immediately declared illegal and unconstitutional. The leader of the country’s largest opposition party was able to rally MPs to vote down the declaration in parliament, and ordinary citizens to protest against it, despite the ruling that they couldn’t. Within 24 hours, Yeol’s attempt was toppled and he now faces impeachment charges.
South Korea’s bizarre turn of events shows the potential effectiveness of collective action against authoritarianism. The power of persistent campaigning was also brought to light in Iran this week, when the jailed rapper and activist Toomaj Salehi (a former winner in the arts category of Index’s Freedom of Expression Awards) was released from prison. He had previously been sentenced to death (later overturned) for voicing support for anti-government protests, including the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in 2022. Tireless international protest from campaign groups – jointly led by Index, the Human Rights Foundation and Doughty Street Chambers – undoubtedly put pressure on Iranian authorities to permit his release.
But of course, attempts to congregate against injustice are not always successful, or accepted. In Georgia this week, where we have seen a degradation of democracy under the Georgian Dream party, there was a horrendous crackdown on peaceful protesters.
Since the country’s contested election in October, where the party secured a fourth term, citizens have come out in droves and have been met with state violence, including being physically assaulted, and attacked with water cannon and tear gas. You can read more about the steady decline towards autocracy in Georgia in this piece by Index CEO Jemimah Steinfeld, who visited Tbilisi in October.
This response is just one example of how peaceful protest is being eroded, despite it being protected as a human right under international law. We’re seeing examples of this all over the world. Last month, Clemence Manyukwe reported for Index on how anti-government protesters in Mozambique were injured and even killed following the country’s disputed presidential election.
And even when violence isn’t used, legal mechanisms can be utilised to undermine people’s right to show dissent. On our own shores, the previous government introduced the Public Order Act, which has substantially restricted people’s ability to protest freely, and has made it easier to criminalise protesters by lowering the threshold at which police can arrest them. The result has been hundreds of activists being arrested and prosecuted, including the climate activist Greta Thunberg.
Earlier this year, the High Court found that the former home secretary Suella Braverman had acted unlawfully in introducing this legislation, but the Home Office appealed the ruling. The new Labour government has continued the appeal, which has spurred criticism from human rights organisations. Katy Watts, lawyer at Liberty, said: “For the countless people currently in the over-stretched criminal justice system because of these unlawful regulations, we must see the law quashed and the government respecting our fundamental right to protest.”
Protest movements are not always against governments. Also in the UK this week, we saw a large media workers’ strike from staff at The Guardian and The Observer over the sale of the The Observer to Tortoise Media, an acquisition which has proved controversial.
Whilst the sale of a business does not, on its own, represent a risk to free expression, concerns have been raised over whether there are safeguards in place to protect the newspaper’s editorial independence, as one of the few remaining liberal news outlets in the UK. There have also been concerns over the ability of company staff to speak out publicly against the deal without fear of punishment or recrimination, with some employees reporting being warned against voicing their opinions freely.
Index was one of many signatories of a letter addressed to The Scott Trust – which owns the Guardian Media Group – and Tortoise raising concerns about the risks to free expression from the mechanisms of the sale. Despite the 48-hour strike, the sale went ahead this morning, indicating that protest is not always an effective mechanism for change.
But whilst it may not always result in the desired outcome, it sends a message – whether to governments or private businesses – about individuals’ rights to express their disapproval or outrage. The ability to do so without fear of criminal reprisal or violence is a fundamental right and must be protected at all costs.
