Winners of the 2016 Freedom of Expression Awards: from left, Farieha Aziz of Bolo Bhi (campaigning), Serge Bambara — aka “Smockey” (Music in Exile), Murad Subay (arts), Zaina Erhaim (journalism). GreatFire (digital activism), not pictured, is an anonymous collective. Photo: Sean Gallagher for Index on Censorship
Murad Subay
In 2011, artist Murad Subay took to the streets of Yemen’s capital, Sana’a to protest the country’s dysfunctional economy and institutionalised corruption, and to bring attention to a population besieged by conflict. Choosing street art as his medium of protest, he’s since run five campaigns to promote peace and art, and to discuss sensitive political and social issues in society. Unlike many street artists, all his painting is done in public, during the day, often with passers-by getting involved themselves.
Subay won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Arts.
Zaina Erhaim
A Syrian-native who was studying journalism in London when war broke out in Syria in 2013, Zaina Erhaim decided to return permanently to report and train citizen journalists in the war-ravaged country. Between the violence and deadly misogyny of IS and the bombing raids of Russian allies of Assad the danger of living in the region as a female reporter is immense. However, Erhaim has trained hundreds of journalists, including many women.
Erhaim won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Journalism.
Bolo Bhi
Bolo Bhi, which means “speak up” in Urdu, is a non-profit run by a powerful all-female team, fighting for internet access, digital security and privacy in Pakistan and around the world. Founded in 2012 by Sana Saleem and Farieha Aziz, they have since fought tirelessly to challenge Pakistan’s increasingly pervasive internet censorship.
Bolo Bhi won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Campaigning.
Smockey
Serge Bambara — aka Smockey, meaning “se moquer”, or “to mock” — is a hip-hop artist from Burkina Faso, who has had a marked impact on political and social developments there.
Smockey is the inaugural recipient of the Music in Exile Fund Fellowship.
GreatFire
GreatFire was set up in 2011 by three anonymous individuals to counter the “Great Firewall of China”, the systematic blocking by the Chinese government of any website deemed controversial, including any that touch on news, human rights, democracy or religion.
GreatFire is the winner of the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Digital Campaigning. We spoke to a GreatFire representative Charlie Smith, a pseudonym.
What does this award mean to GreatFire?
“It’s a great honour. Working in China, GreatFire has a pretty difficult job and we often feel we’re on our own. It means a lot to us to get this award. It’s like feedback; it’s very nice.”
What’s standing in your way?
“Our adversary is not just the Chinese authorities. There are dominant foreign internet companies that are putting obstacles in our way. They could be helping us more. It’s sometimes harder to deal with the major internet players than the Chinese authorities.”
What kinds of pressures does GreatFire face?
“Last year, in New York, we organised an art show and events. One of the events we organised was around feminism. Participants’ families were threatened at home in China. It makes it quite unsafe for people.”
Is the situation getting worse?
“Recently, there have been tons of arrests and detentions. People I speak to in other organisations agree. No one has ever seen anything like this. The Chinese authorities are trying to disrupt networks. More sites have been blocked. There’s more domestic censorship. It is getting worse.
“Telegram was blocked by China after realised that activist lawyers were using it to communicate with their clients. When it was blocked the lawyers were using WeChat to communicate with their clients. The authorities sat back and watched the connections. They arrested 100 people on a Friday night.”
What’s GreatFire’s biggest challenge?
Funding is our biggest challenge. We’re a victim of our own success. The more people use the app, the more it costs us. Our solution is based on collateral freedom. The more people are using it the more collateral freedom costs. China knows that there is an economic cost to shutting us down [because we are using systems that generate revenues for Chinese companies]. But it costs us money to run. It costs us 20 cents per user per month.
People can make donations through freebrowser.org.
It’s our hope that we don’t exist next year because the Chinese censorship system will be gone.
GreatFire was set up in 2011 by three anonymous individuals to counter the “Great Firewall of China”, the systematic blocking by the Chinese government of any website deemed controversial, including any that touch on news, human rights, democracy or religion.
“We know them as a mix of folks within China and outside of China who have a mix of activism and technological expertise,” said Dan Meredith of the Open Tech Fund, one of GreatFire’s financial backers.
“Their motivations are not regime change, but purely wanting to see progress for the Chinese people, and see more reforms happen in the Chinese government. They’re passion driven, but they also have this insider knowledge about how to circumvent some of these really sophisticated things that are happening in China,” he told Index.
“GreatFire is quite a mysterious organisation,” Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia told Index. “It’s, roughly speaking, five people, maybe it’s not quite five, maybe its more,” he said. “But it really is just a small group of people who have come together to do something important.”
The team started out collecting data about which sites were blocked in China, and now monitors over thousands of sites, domains and Google searches. “They have a network of computers in and outside of China, testing for whether websites that are generally available to the public here in the UK or the US or any other country that has unrestricted access to the whole internet, are available within China,” Meredith explains. Their site also shows how much of the time it has been blocked, and offers an explanation as to how.
GreatFire are also the makers of FreeWeibo, which was a shortlisted in 2015’s Index Awards and acts as a mirror to Weibo, the popular, but heavily censored, Chinese social network. As well as this they also run FreeBooks, allowing people in China read censored books.
“GreatFire are one of the organisations that are really fighting hard against censorship in China,” said Wales.
But last year GreatFire’s work went from being an annoyance to the Chinese authorities, to being something they couldn’t ignore, Meredith explained.
Using an idea called collateral freedom, GreatFire made blocked sites accessible to millions in China and around the world. The collateral freedom idea works by pinning banned websites to those of big corporations (such as Amazon, Microsoft or GitHub) which, in order to compete in the global marketplace, China cannot block. When organisations normally blocked in China – like the BBC or Reuters – use, for example, amazon.com as a host their sites can remain visible in China.
In February 2015, GreatFire used this technology to release an Android app, allowing anyone in China, or in other countries where the web is censored, to access these otherwise censored sites. Everything they do is open source, so their work can be replicated by others.
However, it was GreatFire’s work with Reporters Without Borders, Meredith says, that finally caused the Chinese government to retaliate.
“We know is that they are incredibly frustrated by this collateral freedom idea,” he said. “But what happened last year when Reporters Without Borders started employing this is…there became a very big press strategy, so what ended up being a thing that was quietly annoying the Chinese became a very public thing that was annoying the Chinese.”
The project was launched on World Press Freedom Day in March 2015, and used collateral freedom to unblock websites around the world, making previously censored sites available in Russia, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. The unblocked websites included Reuters Chinese, BBC on China and German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
The response from the Chinese government, which became known as the “Great Cannon”, was a critical test for the idea of collateral freedom, says Meredith.
“They took all the Chinese traffic that was trying to come in, and put a mirror on it – so this is one billion people, a third of the internet – and instead of directing that to an internal website, they redirected all that traffic to GitHub, to Amazon, to Microsoft,” said Meredith. By directing this traffic to all the sites used by collateral freedom, the Chinese government were testing those service providers.
“It was just enough to raise all the flags and create a very public storm which created a further media event that said ‘China is blocking Amazon or blocking GitHub’ – at which point they stopped.”
The point of this, Meredith explains, is that the economic cost of blocking the big providers, this time, outweighed the Chinese government’s desire to censor the web. So if in the future, during a major election for example, the government might be tempted to block these sites. GreatFire showed the Chinese government, and the world, what it would cost.
“What it shows is possible is something GreatFire can really lay claim to. They showed that China could do this, would try to do it, that those companies could weather that storm, and that the balance is still there where millions of people are able to get online because of collateral freedom.”
Pressure on Europe’s journalists as they do their jobs saw no let up during the fourth quarter of 2015, according to a survey of verified incidents of violations reported to Index on Censorship’s project Mapping Media Freedom.
Between 1 October and 31 December 2015, Mapping Media Freedom‘s network of 19 correspondents verified 232 reports that were submitted to the database. Each report is reviewed for factual accuracy and confirmed with local sources before an incident is publicly available on the map. The platform — a joint undertaking with the European Federation of Journalists and Reporters Without Borders and partially funded by the European Commission — covers 40 countries, including all EU member states, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia, Iceland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine. Since it was launched in May 2014, the map has recorded over 1,300 violations of media freedom.
During the fourth quarter of 2015: 518 media jobs were lost; two media workers reporting on the Syrian conflict were killed in Turkey; 40 reports of physical assaults on media professionals were confirmed; media workers were detained in 26 cases with criminal charges filed in 11 cases; media professionals were blocked from covering a story in 55 verified incidents; and journalists were subject to public denigration in 22 of the verified reports.
Andrei Bastunets, chairperson of the Belarusian Association of Journalists (Belarusian Association of Journalists)
Belarusian authorities were busy in 2015: the government introduced new laws aimed at restricting media outlets and distributors; freelance journalists contributing to foreign media outlets found themselves facing prosecution; and websites publishing material that “may harm the national interests of the Republic of Belarus” were extrajudicially blocked.
President Aleksandr Lukashenko may have won his fifth consecutive election on 11 October, but this also raised concerns. Observers noted the electoral process failed to meet certain international standards, including equal media access for candidates, highlighting the pressure media workers find themselves under to comply with tightening government control.
Andrei Bastunets, chairperson of the Belarusian Association of Journalists, spoke to Mapping Media Freedom Volha Siakhovich about the country’s freedom of expression climate.
Volha Siakhovich: How would you describe the situation with media freedom in Belarus in 2015?
Andrei Bastunets: Press freedom has never been easy in Belarus. The country has been ranked 157th out in 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders for some years, which is the worst position among all European countries. We can also see the deterioration of the situation with press freedom and freedom of expression as a whole at the systemic level, with the further tightening of the legal framework for activities of the media set forth by new amendments to the Law on Mass Media came into force from the beginning of 2015. They had been adopted by the Belarusian parliament unexpectedly in December 2014 without any public discussion.
Why were the amendments made?
Andrei Bastunets: The Belarusian authorities are always in keeping with the trend of stifling freedom of speech through legal restrictions. The current authorities’ actions against the media are related to the 2015 presidential election campaign and economic crises in Belarus. These circumstances have provoked the tightening of state control over the media field. It affected traditional media, the web and the distribution of print outlets. Before the election, all media had been subjected to more strict limitations.
What problems are associated with state control over the distribution of media?
Andrei Bastunets: In accordance with new legal provisions all media outlets distributors (except for editorial boards) have been obliged to submit to the ministry of information the required information for their incorporation into the State Register until 1 July 2015. Any non-registered distributors’ activity is considered illegal. The ministry of information has various penalty tools that can be applied in relation to media distributors, including the banning of their activity. The distributors are now in fact forced to monitor the content of the distributed media under threat of sanctions. That may lead to the hidden censorship.
Several independent outlets that used to sell the major part of their print-runs through different trade companies and entrepreneurs have faced a reduction in sales since a significant part of press distributors have not agreed to apply to the ministry of information of Belarus for a special permit. At the same time, the “Belposhta” and “Sayuzdruk — state-owned monopolist press distributors — continue to discriminate against Belarusian independent media refusing to co-operate with them.
What negative consequences have followed the changes to the legal regulation regarding the web?
Andrei Bastunets: There is an active interference by the ministry of information of Belarus into the web, which has remained the freest segment in the Belarusian media space. According to the adopted amendments to the Law on Mass Media and provisions of presidential decree No.6 of 28 December 2014 On Urgent Actions to Counteract Illegal Drug Trafficking, which came into force at the beginning of 2015, the ministry of information was authorised to block access to websites extrajudicially for publishing information prohibited by law. It particularly includes the information, which ‘may harm the national interests of the Republic of Belarus’. Now owners of websites are obliged to monitor their web contents including comments of users.
Any state agency can contribute to the formation of a “black list” of websites. It is enough to inform the ministry of information that, in its opinion, a website violates the law. It is important to note that the process has been completely removed from the judicial sphere and has been assigned to the state agencies and the ministry of information. A procedure for judicial review of such decisions is not provided.
Not only are websites to be blocked, but blogs as well. It is a mechanism of a manifestly repressive character and it does not agree with the principles of freedom of expression. In addition, this mechanism is in the hands of the authorities who do not respect these basic principles. Now it is clear that there are no possibilities to appeal against their decisions in fact besides applications to the authorities themselves.
On 18 June 2015, the ministry of information used its power and blocked access to the website KYKY.org. As it was stated in the ministerial report, some KYKY online publications “contained derogatory statements concerning the Belarusian Victory Day public holiday, as well as the citizens of the country who celebrated it, thus… calling in question the significance of this event for the state and distorting the historical truth about the Great Patriotic War”. The editorial staff had to remove all publications that the ministerial officers disliked in order to get back online.
What were the main restrictions to media freedom facing Belarusian journalists last year?
Andrei Bastunets: We witnessed intensified persecution of freelance journalists contributing for foreign media, detentions of journalists by police, interference of the ministry of information in the work of media and the blocking of access to information for journalists. The situation remained highly unfavorable, and the intensification of pressure on journalists and media was recorded during in the course of the presidential election in Belarus in October 2015.
Although no new criminal cases were brought against journalist in 2015, Belarusian journalist Aliaksandr Alesin remains a suspect in an espionage case which has been going on since 25 November 2014, when he was first detained. Alesin is a military expert and a columnist of the weekly Belarusians and Market. At first, the journalist was charged with treason and co-operation with foreign secret services or intelligence agencies. The charge of treason was withdrawn and he was freed, but he still stands accused of co-operation with foreign intelligence services.
In your opinion, why do the Belarusian authorities chase freelancers co-operating with foreign media?
Andrei Bastunets: Prosecution of freelance journalists cooperating with foreign media started in 2014 was continuing in 2015. During 2015, Belarusian freelance journalists have been fined 28 times under Art. 22.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences for “illegal making and distributing mass media productions”. As before, the authorities repressed the independent media workers for the mere fact of publication of their pieces in foreign media. I believe, this is explained by the desire of the Belarusian authorities to restrict the influence of foreign media as the important independent sources of information in the conditions of the lack of independent audiovisual media in Belarus. All the fined freelance journalists worked for foreign radios or TV channels broadcasting for Belarus in Belarusian of Russian languages. As the Belarusian authorities are not able to control these media, they aim to control Belarusian citizens contributing to them.
The prosecution of freelance journalists dramatically intensified at the beginning of summer 2015. At the beginning of August 2015, after the president’s promise to look into the problem during his interview to journalists of independent media, initiating such cases was stopped. However, there were no legal guarantees that the situation would not repeat after the presidential election. And in December policemen in the Gomel region drew up three reports for cooperation with foreign media. Now we are expecting that the reports will be sent to the court.
What are the current main challenges with the Belarusian Association of Journalists?
Andrei Bastunets: As always, the challenges of Belarusian Association of Journalists are the protection of journalistic freedom and free speech values through interaction with state bodies, legal assistance and international advocacy.
