9 Feb 2012 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
Political blogger Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes took the stand at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday, and made numerous allegations relating to phone hacking. Appearing before the court, Staines, who is well known for his website’s “tittle tattle, gossip and rumour”, accused politicians, journalists and editors alike.
Staines told the court that two journalists had confirmed to him that Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver had authorised phone hacking and blagging, and went on to accuse Telegraph journalist Gordon Rayner of using private investigator Steve Whittamore. The blogger said that the journalist’s name appeared 335 times in Operation Motorman files, and 185 of those appearances were in relation to alleged illegal transactions.
The allegations continued, as Staines described selling a series of photographs to the News of the World of Chris Myers, special advisor to Foreign Secretary William Hague, in a gay bar, following his publication of a story on Hague sharing a hotel room with Myers. Staines said the pictures, which were sold for £20,000 but were never published, were bought to take them off the market.
Describing “lobby terms”, a term applied to off the record information divulged to journalists by politicians, Staines said that it went “beyond off the record” and often resulted in “journalists complicit in politicians’ lying.” Staines added: “Journalists shouldn’t accept anonymous briefings, because most of the time it is used to besmirch other politicians, without them getting their fingerprints on it”
With regards to the attacks from the press on people such as Chris Jefferies and Kate and Jerry McCann, the blogger said:
“I think ultimately, the McCanns and Chris Jefferies have been able to get reparations through the courts. Stopping these abuses from happening means you’ll lose the freedom of the press.”
Staines added: “Phone hacking is against the law and criminal sanctions are available to deal with that. We don’t need press reform to deal with that.”
In reference to his Irish citizenship, the blogger also said: “What I think you’re missing is that I’m a citizen of a free republic and, since 1922, I don’t have to pay attention to what a British judge orders me to do.”
Martin Moore from the Media Standards Trust and Will Moy from Full Fact also appeared before the court.
In a lively and entertaining submission, the pair, who gave their evidence together, discussed PCC data and gave their suggestions for regulation of the press.
Moore explained that most often problems with dealing with complaints do not stem from the PCC, but from news organisations dragging their feet: “through all my experience the PCC secretariat have been very helpful and done the best they can. In many cases the problem is with the newspaper outlet, not the PCC.”
Moy suggested that regulation was necessary to “counteract market failures” and added that publishing accurately was “a matter of basic civic responsibility.”
Moy added: “If a newspaper has been told that there is a serious problem with a headline, if a complainant goes away, it doesn’t mean that the problem has gone away. A regulator would pursue the problem, a complaints handler pursues the complaint.”
Helen Belcher, who appeared on behalf of TransMediaWatch described the issues surrounding media coverage of trans people to the court.
“Most trans people now, when they’re the subject of an article they deem worthy of a complaint, don’t bother, becausd the PCC has received a number of complaints and it appears that nothing ever changes as a result of those complaints.”
She explained that the use of the single word “tran” caused great distress to a number of trans people: “The word ‘tran’ dehumanises an individual. Trans people are not solely trans, they have other interests they do other things. They have different categories, and to constantly reduce trans people to one category dehumanises them.”
Belcher described the routine misgendering of trans people within the media, and the use of intrusive “before and after” photographs which are “incredibly offensive” to the subjects. She said: “It’s routine. It happens today in the press, despite the editors’ protestations that everything is sorted out.”
Editor in Chief of online newspaper Huffington Post, Carla Buzasi explained the importance of consulting digital media on the Leveson inquiry, describing it as “the future of the media in this country.”
The editor suggested that some news organisations were not interested in being a part of the PCC because they did not “hold it in high regard,” and suggested that a future regulator would need to be sufficiently respected that it would be “foolish” not to be a part of it.
Buzasi said that no phone hacking, blagging or subterfuge took place at the Huffington Post.
Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions also appeared, and advised that a policy specifically for journalists, on what a prosecution will consider when investigating a journalist in doing their work as a journalist will make things clearer. Starmer advised that an interim policy would be drawn up in a matter of weeks.
Pam Surphlis of Support after Murder and Manslaughter in Northern Ireland (SAMM NI) gave evidence to the court via video link.
Surphlis explained that SAMM NI was set up after she read “salacious gossip” about the death of her father. The group went on to conduct a study into the relationship between journalists and the victims’ families; and effects of press coverage on the victims’ families. The study found that journalists were “intrusive and insensitive in their approach.”
She added that the PCC code relating to dealing with deaths is not “user-friendly.”
Surphlis said she was grateful to the inquiry for enabling SAMM NI to have a voice that someone is prepared to listen to.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
20 Jan 2012 | Uncategorized
As the March 2012 Iranian parliamentary elections edge closer, authorities have begun to crack down on press freedom. In a new wave of arrests over recent weeks, at least three prominent journalists have been detained.
Blogger and women’s rights activist Parastou Dokouhaki was arrested in Tehran on Sunday, after security agents raided her home, confiscated her computer and personal effects, and detained her. It is believed that the journalist, who used to work for a reformist feminist magazine which was shut down in 2008, has been charged with “propaganda against the state.”
Dokouhaki, a media studies graduate from London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, is well known in Iran for her blog Zan-Nehvesht, and has, in the past, been an active campaigner.
Dokouhaki has recently been working as a researcher, having taken a step back from politics to deal with the death of her father.
Her former teacher, Annabelle Sreberny, Professor of Global Media and Communications at SOAS explained that Dokouhaki had been focusing on her future studies, and considering undertaking a PhD. Sreberny said:
“She was not politically active. But of course one of the problems with the Islamic republic is that almost anything can be deemed political on a whim.”
Sreberny added that, though Dokouhaki is charged with “propaganda against the state,” it is unclear why she was targeted, suggesting that “political game playing” had led to a degree of randomness with regards to political arrests.
Sreberny was unsure if these recent arrests were related to a new crackdown in the run up to the elections: “You could say that the campaign of fear has been active since the 2009 election, and this is just part of that long and hard period. There’s been a campaign of fear and an atmosphere of fear since Ahmadinejad was elected, and since the 2009 elections, so this is a long and difficult period for Iranians. I think this is just the continuation of that, but whether it’s becoming more extreme or not is a judgement call.”
Speaking of imprisoned journalists, bloggers, film-makers and photographers Sreberny added: “Iran is a regime which will clamp down on all forms of legitimate free speech if it feels nervous and anxious about its status and of course at the moment it does. They are tools caught up in a much bigger political conflict between different parts of the regime and I think there’s a great deal of randomness here. Almost any blogger, journalist or woman who’s ever held a pamphlet could be accused of this terribly open, vague, and almost impossible to prove charge.”
Freelance journalist and blogger Marzieh Rasouli, who writes mainly on music and literature for art and cultural publications, was arrested on Tuesday, but reasons for her arrest remain unclear.
Mehrad Vaezinejad, a Middle East affairs analyst, and close friend of Rasouli, explained that she had little interest in politics, and had recently had her passport returned, after it was confiscated for no apparent reason, last year. Vaezinejad believes the arrest may be a preventative measure:
“This is part of a broader campaign, getting closer to the parliamentary elections in March. Both Mazier and Parastou have popular blogs, and they have many, many friends and networks that the authorities are afraid of. It could be these arrests are mostly a pre-emptive action, not that these people have done anything, but maybe to make them afraid, to make sure that they wouldn’t do anything at all in the coming months.”
Vaezinejad believes the authorities sense a political crisis is in the making: “That’s why I think they are acting pre-emptively, and creating a campaign of fear, if you can call it so, so that people who might, even if they are not active now, have the potential to become involved later on, they want to neutralise them.”
Vaezinejad suggested that both Rasouli and Dokouhaki may have been arrested because they had friends outside Iran who worked for media organisations such as Radio Free Europe and the BBC, “the kind of media that the republic considers to be enemies, or mouthpieces for enemies.”
On Wednesday, photo-journalist Sahamedin Bourghani was also arrested, and added to the list of a dozen journalists who have been sent to prison in Iran in recent weeks.
Last week Reporters Without Borders raised concerns over the situation of Iranian journalists in a letter to UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay. The letter called for her immediate intervention on behalf of Iran’s persecuted media activists.
In December, Iranian military, police and security forces announced their “readiness” to deal with unrest on election day.
Thanks to Women Living Under Muslim Laws for their assistance with this piece
18 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
In an Afghanistan prison, one woman is serving a 12-year sentence for being the victim of a rape. Another woman is serving time for running away from 10 years of abuse from her husband. These women want to tell their stories, and in late 2010, they were given the chance to speak out in an EU funded film. But post-production, the film has been blocked by the EU, leaving these women with the weight of their stories, and no forum for them to be heard.
With the help of the European Union, London based film maker Clementine Malpas set out to expose the plight of women convicted of “moral crimes” in Afghanistan. After working on the film for three months, gaining the trust and support of the Afghan women interviewed, Malpas was told the film “In-Justice: The story of Afghan women,” would never be released.
50 per cent of women imprisoned in the country are there for moral crimes, namely running away from home, or having sex outside of marriage, including rape as well as adultery and consensual sex outside wedlock, and Malpas wanted to broadcast this issue to the world.
Initially, the partnership between Malpas and the EU was to create a documentary film which followed a female politician through her election campaign, right up to the election date, but this plan fell through. Malpas presented the EU with other options, and the concept for the film on moral crimes was approved.
Malpas said: “I got into documentaries to show human rights abuses, to shine a light on awful situations, and tell the world what is going on, so I was glad to do the film about the women in prison. It’s something I feel passionately about.”
In the film, two women, imprisoned for moral crimes explain how they ended up in prison. 19-year-old Gulnaz, who was particularly passionate about having her story told, was arrested after her cousin’s husband tied her hands and feet together and raped her.
26-year-old Farida fled from an abusive husband who had chased her around their house with an iron rod, and threatened to urinate in her mouth. She was arrested whilst staying with the family of another man. Police said they could tell she had committed adultery, because she was not a virgin — but Farida had been married for ten years, and had a baby.
Both women gave their consent for the documentary to be made, both on film, and in writing. Gulnaz said “I have no other option, you have to tell my story. I want everyone to know that I am innocent.” But the EU have cited concerns over the safety of the women as their reason for blocking the film.
Malpas said: “After making the film and beginning distribution, I was told this film is never going to be broadcast. It’s such an important story. I really wanted to get the message out. It would be even more powerful if the story comes from these women, rather than from me talking about them.”
Heather Barr, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch, agreed that it was essential to give these women a chance to discuss what has happened to them.
“It sounds to me like an overwhelming majority of these women in prison haven’t committed crimes under the penal code. These women are invisible. People don’t know that this issue exists. It’s important to talk about this – these women are imprisoned for being victims of abuse.”
She added: “These imprisonments tell a story about how little progress has been made since the fall of the Taliban, and it shows the terrible state the justice system is in.”
Malpas explained that the EU’s decision not to release the film had been a blessing in disguise — the film, and therefore the subject, is getting more press coverage and interest than it would have, had it been approved.
“For me, it’s not about the EU blocking the film, it’s about the story getting out there,” she says
An EU representative told Associated Press:
“The EU decided to withdraw the film only because there were very real concerns for the safety of the women it portrayed. Their welfare was and continues to be the paramount consideration in this matter.”
Malpas explained that since the press coverage began, she has received widespread support. MP’s and MEP’s from around the country have written to the film-maker advocating the documentary, and the issue has been discussed in European Parliament.
But despite that, Malpas doesn’t believe the film will ever be released. She said:
“There’s a hold on this film – and it’s never going to be let go.”
11 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
A father of three from Nuneaton, UK, appeared in the High Court yesterday to face libel allegations over a book review he wrote on Amazon.
Vaughan Jones, 28, appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday for a hearing to defend himself against the libel suit from online entrepreneur Chris McGrath.
McGrath, author of “The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need to Know,” undertook libel action against Jones, after he published a review of the book on Amazon, and comments regarding the book and Mr McGrath himself on Richard Dawkins’s website during September and October 2010. Jones also outed McGrath as the author of the book, which had been written under the pseudonym “Scrooby”.
McGrath is not only suing Jones for his allegedly defamatory comments, but Amazon, Richard Dawkins himself, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation.
Presided over by His Honour Judge Maloney QC, Jones was joined by legal representation for Amazon and the Richard Dawkins Foundation to ascertain if there is a case to answer.
Entrepreneur turned author McGrath believes that Amazon and the Richard Dawkins Foundation did not respond appropriately to the alleged defamatory statements on the respective websites, and thus they are also liable for a defamation suit.
John Kampfner, the Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, said: “That a family man from Nuneaton can face a potentially ruinous libel action for a book review on Amazon shows how archaic and expensive our libel law is.”
Kampfner added that the Libel Reform Campaign, which is underway with English Pen and Sense about Science, is hoping to commit to a bill in the next Queen’s speech to reform the chilling effect libel has on freedom of speech.
The hearing continues today
