24 Dec 2020 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115942″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]2020 will undoubtedly be a year studied for generations, a year dominated by Covid-19.
A year in which 1.77 million people have died (as of this week) from a virus none of us had heard 12 months ago.
We have all lived in various stages of lockdown, some of our core human rights restricted, even in the most liberal of societies, in order to save lives.
A global recession, levels of government debt which have never been seen in peacetime in any nation.
Our lives lived more online than in the real world. If we’ve been lucky a year dominated by Netflix and boredom; if we weren’t so lucky a year dominated by the death of loved ones and the impact of long Covid.
Rather than being a year of hope this has been a year of fear. Fear of the unknown and of an illness, not an enemy.
Understandably little else has broken through the news agenda as we have followed every scientific briefing on the illness, its spread, the impact on our health services, the treatments, the vaccines, the new virus variants and the competence of our governments as they try to keep us safe.
But behind the headlines, there have been the stories of people’s actual lives. How Covid-19 changed them in every conceivable way. How some governments have used the pandemic as an opportunity to bring in new repressive measures to undermine the basic freedoms of their citizens. Of the closure of local newspapers – due to public health concerns as well as mass redundancies of journalists due to a sharp fall in revenue.
2020 wasn’t just about the pandemic though.
We saw worldwide protests as people responded under the universal banner of Black Lives Matter to the egregious murder of George Floyd.
In Hong Kong, the CCP enacted the National Security Law as a death knell to democracy and we saw protestors arrested and books removed from the public libraries – all under the guise of “security”.
The world witnessed more evidence of genocidal acts in Xinjiang province as the CCP Government continues to target the Muslim Uighur community.
In France, the world looked on in horror as Samuel Party was brutally murdered for teaching free speech to his students.
Genuine election fraud in Belarus led to mass protests, on many occasions led by women – as they sought free and fair elections rather than the sham they experienced this year.
In America, we lived and breathed the Presidential Election and witnessed the decisive victory of a new President – as Donald Trump continued to undermine the First Amendment, the free press and free and fair democracy.
In Thailand, we saw mass protests and the launch of the Milk Tea Alliance against the governments of Hong Kong, Thailand and Taiwan, seeking democracy in Southeast Asia.
In Egypt, the world witnessed the arrest of the staff of the EIPR for daring to brief international diplomats on the number of political prisoners currently held in Egyptian jails.
Ruhollah Zam was executed by his government for being a journalist and a human rights activist in Iran.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. From Kashmir to Tanzania to the Philippines we’ve heard report after report of horrendous attacks on our collective basic human rights. 72 years after United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we still face daily breaches in every corner of the planet.
While Index cannot support every victim or target, we can highlight those who embody the current scale of the attacks on our basic right to free expression.
Nearly everybody has experienced some form of loneliness or isolation this year. But even so we cannot imagine what it must be like to be incarcerated by your government for daring to be different, for being brave enough to use your voice, for investigating the actions of ruling party or even for studying history.
So, as we come to the end of this fateful year I urge you to send a message to one of our free speech heroes:
- Aasif Sultan, who was arrested in Kashmir after writing about the death of Buhran Waniand has been under illegal detention without charge for more than 800 days;
- Golrokh Emrahimi Iraee, jailed for writing about the practice of stoning in Iran;
- Hatice Duman, the former editor of the banned socialist newspaper Atılım, who has been in jail in Turkey since 2002;
- Khaled Drareni, the founder of the Casbah Tribune, jailed in Algeria for two years in September for ‘incitement to unarmed gathering’ simply for covering the weekly Hirak protests calling for political reform in the country;
- Loujain al-Hathloul, a women’s rights activist known for her attempts to raise awareness of the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia;
- Yuri Dmitriev, a historian being silenced by Putin in Russia for creating a memorial to the victims of Stalinist terror and facing fabricated sexual assault charges.
Visit http://www.indexoncensorship.org/JailedNotForgotten to leave them a message.
Happy Christmas to you and yours and here’s to a more positive 2021.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
8 Dec 2020 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Credit: Daniel Schludi/Unsplash
As soon as Matt Hancock tweeted the news last week that the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine had been approved in the UK, the negative responses flooded in. “Take it at your peril. Eminent Drs in this field say it’s dangerous. It could cause death to those who later come in contact with the virus, & infertility in women. Who knows what else it will do,” said one. “It’s like boasting you won the race to Chernobyl” read another.
It’s tempting to dismiss these responses. But doing so would be counterproductive at best. Right now we need more information. And more information will involve bringing those who have reservations and fears about getting the vaccine into the public conversation.
Index is not a medical charity and it is not our job to write about the merits or demerits of the various vaccines. What is our job is to safeguard our freedoms. When it comes to vaccines, the territory is very challenging – and incredibly important. We strictly stand against enforcing the vaccine through mooted measures such as vaccine passports or banning the unvaccinated from foreign travel or school. Actions like these which would restrict freedoms for the unvaccinated are deeply troubling and could be tantamount to coercion.
But that doesn’t mean inaction is acceptable either. When there are surveys like the Opinium poll released at the weekend saying as many as one in three might not take the vaccine, we recognise that one person’s right to refuse a vaccine might impact another person’s right to live without fear of catching a deadly virus. There are members of the public that won’t be able to vaccinate who are very vulnerable, such as those undergoing treatments for certain illnesses, pregnant women and newborns. Without herd immunity – most easily achieved through mass vaccination – they all run the risk of catching Covid-19 and we recognise that the government has a duty to protect them.
Communication is the most ethical form of advocacy. Moreover, it’s most likely the most effective. The government – and all of us as members of society – must listen to people’s fears. Rather than mocking those who tweet at Matt Hancock that the vaccine can cause “death to those who later come in contact with the virus” and “infertility in women” we would have far more success at convincing people to vaccinate if we address these points. Is there any evidence for the claims? Where does this information come from? What are the risks?
If there is even a morsel of truth to some negative assertions, they should be discussed. And in discussing we must change how we discuss. Emily Oster is an economics professor in the USA. When she was pregnant with her first child, she was frustrated by blanket guidance saying things like “do not drink”. She found it disempowering and unhelpful. She dug into the data and wrote a book called Expecting Better, now a bestseller. It changes the terms of the discussion by expanding it. Instead of saying do not drink, she qualifies the risks and empowers her readers with a more complete picture.
We need to take a leaf out of Oster’s book and talk more openly about risk. No vaccine is 100% safe. Nor is crossing the road. Or walking down stairs. Or eating seafood. Rather than dismissing people’s concerns about the risks, we need to acknowledge them – and most importantly contextualise them. How does the risk of taking one vaccine weigh against relatable risks that we take day-to-day, like driving a car or consuming alcohol?
Finally, we need to adopt a no-size-fits-all policy. We cannot expect to reach everyone through the same messaging. New York’s Jewish Hassidic community has seen a series of measles outbreaks over the last few years exacerbated by an anti-vaccination handbook which was finding popularity in the community. In response a number of Orthodox Jewish nurses formed a group to combat the issue. As part of their grassroots approach, which involved going into people’s homes, they worked with community rabbis to discount some of the false claims in the book, such as one saying the MMR vaccine violates kosher dietary law. Health officials praised the group’s approach as highly effective at persuading parents to vaccinate their children. Their voices were simply more trusted in the community than outside voices.
We need to learn from examples such as this. We know Covid-19 has affected different groups in different ways – and that different groups have very different fears about the vaccinations. We need to tailor the message, advise and approach to each audience and their needs.
The same applies to how we talk about those who don’t vaccine. There is a tendency to lump them all in the same bracket – “anti-vaxxers”. Let’s stop that now because the reality is far more complex than a singular monolithic group of vaccine sceptics. Those who are strongly against vaccines (the stereotypical anti-vaxxers frequently derided by mainstream media) represent only a small proportion of the non-vaccinating population. Some who don’t vaccinate are what can more accurately be described as fence-sitters or vaccine-hesitant people. Many others simply slip through the net. Often these people have had every intention to vaccinate but didn’t receive letters, reminders or easy-to-digest guidance about when and where to get vaccines. It’s clear that these different segments warrant very different approaches.
There will be no easy way to ensure strong vaccine uptake. But if Index can offer any advice having documented a smorgasbord of attacks on science over the years, it’s that we can’t just rely on “the facts” to win the day. We need to work hard to persuade people. We need to invite everyone, including those we strongly disagree with, to air their fears and objections. We must not assume that “silenced in the public sphere” means “vanished in the private sphere”. We must empower people with more information, not less. And we must ensure effective communication and outreach in communities with distinct characteristics. Now more than ever we need to offer platforms for everyone to speak and we need to really, really listen in return.
A debate will feature in the forthcoming issue of Index on Censorship magazine, out mid-December, which considers the question of vaccine misinformation online. Two leading professors of global health policy and vaccine resistance take opposing sides on whether social media companies have a moral duty to remove misinformation. Click here for more on the magazine. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Oct 2020 | Africa, News and features, Tanzania
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115317″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]On 28 October, Tanzania goes to the polls. The election will see the Tanzanian people choose a new president, members of parliaments for the mainland as well as Zanzibar and local councillors.
If the elections are free and fair, there is no reason to believe that the incumbent president John Magufuli will not be returned to power. He has a commanding lead in the opinion polls – independent surveys say that 80 per cent of people on the mainland and 71 per cent in Zanzibar are going to vote for him.
Magufuli came to power in 2015, promising to reduce government corruption and spending. He also vowed to increase investment in the country’s industries. He represents the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party that has been in power ever since 1961 when the country gained independence from Britain.
Since his election, Magufuli has been seen to be tough on corruption, particularly related to the mining sector which generates significant incomes for the country.
In 2017, Magufuli presented London-based Acacia with a US$190 billion bill for back tax related to metallic ores exported from the country. The company denied any wrongdoing but its Canadian parent opted to pay the country US$300 million to settle the claims and agreed to share the economic benefits more equitably.
There is also a feeling that Magufuli has handled the Covid pandemic well, although many believe that the country’s statistics do not tell the real story.
At a church service in June, Magufuli claimed that coronavirus had been “removed by the powers of God”.
The number of cases in the country has been stuck at 509 for weeks though that has more to do with the country not releasing official statistics rather than the virus being defeated. Opposition figures claim the true figure is in the tens of thousands and that hundreds have died.
The president clearly has no confidence in the country’s testing regime. Earlier this year he suspended the head of the country’s national health laboratory in charge of coronavirus testing after it was claimed that secret tests carried out on animals, fruits and vehicle oil at the laboratory had tested positive for Covid.
“People genuinely believe he has handled Covid well,” said one person who has had close political and business links with Tanzania for more than 30 years, speaking on condition of anonymity. “His view has been that people in Tanzania would suffer much more from having a lockdown rather than having a few cases and people been getting on with life as normal.”
Part of this may be due to the fact that Tanzania is relatively young – just 3.8 per cent of the country’s 60 million population are aged 65 or over and more likely to die from the disease.
“When infections were higher back in May, people did a lot of traditional remedies, and there was a lot of reliance on local knowledge then, and prayer, and then when things got better people relaxed a bit more,” says Tanzanian poet and writer Neema Komba.
The presence of mass crowds at political gatherings, usually without masks, is perhaps a sign that Covid is no longer considered a serious risk in the country, whatever the truth is about a virus that has killed more than a million people worldwide.
She says that Tanzanians are very aware of individual responsibility.
“There is a saying in Swahili that really reflects the attitude – ‘za kuambiwa changanya na za kwako’ – which means something like what you are told you should analyse on your own”.
Tanzania’s economy is not doing too badly either.
In the 1980s, it was one of the poorest countries in the world. In the middle of that decade, the country embarked on a liberalisation programme under President Ali Hassan Mwinyi which removed price controls, reduced the budget deficit and restructured many of the country’s state-owned enterprises. It has now jumped above many of its fellow African nations in terms of GDP, averaging growth of more than six per cent every year since 2000. This year, growth may fall to between 1.9 and 4 per cent.
The influential businessman with political connections who spoke to Index said, “Magufuli will win this easily. He has a lot of support from people who are fed up with inequalities and fed up with greed that some politicians have shown in the past. The Tanzanian people believe he is generally on their side and that those who are barred form standing have probably got it coming to them.”
Yet the key question is still, will the elections be free and fair?
Magufuli himself vowed in January that the elections would be free and fair but opposition politicians are not convinced. The main opposition party Chadema (Party for Democracy and Progress) has had hundreds of its candidates for parliament and councils disqualified.
Chadema presidential candidate Tundu Lissu was prevented from campaigning for seven days in early October by the NEC for allegedly contravening election rules while Zanzibar’s commission suspended campaigning by ACT Wazalendo candidate Maalim Seif.
Both have been accused of using ‘seditious’ or ‘inciting’ language and some feel that it is only opposition candidates that are picked up on this.
NEC director Dr Wilson Mahera told Tanzania’s Daily News that candidates needed to follow the regulations.
“A leader who continues causing public fears, uttering seditious words may find himself/herself out of the list of candidates before polling date,” said Dr Mahera.
There is a changing mood in the country relating to the media.
The country has typically done well on RSF’s World Press Freedom Index compared to many of its near neighbours. The media has generally been free in the country, particularly under Benjamin Mkapa who ruled the country from 1995 to 2005. Mkapa worked as managing editor of a number of newspapers in the country in the mid-60s to early 70s before starting his political career as press secretary under Julius Nyerere, who took Tanzania to independence.
However, this year the government has tightened up laws which bars Tanzanian broadcasters from airing national or international content on their platforms without prior permission from the government
In June, the government withdrew the licence of newspaper Tanzania Daima for “extreme and repetitive” offences that violate the country’s laws and journalistic ethics.
In July, the government began a crackdown on the use of social media. The Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations 2020 bans “news, statements or rumours for the purpose of ridicule, abuse or harming the reputation, prestige or status of the United Republic, the flag of the United Republic, the national anthem or the United Republic’s symbol, national anthem or its logos”.
“Social media is an interesting space,” says Komba. “I would say there are various Tanzanias on social media but then perhaps it is about the algorithms that show you what you want to see. From my observations, if you are on Twitter, you will get more political discussions, while Facebook and Instagram are completely different and then you have spaces like Jamii forums where people voice their opinions more boldly and WhatsApp where people have more private discussions.”
She added, “The cybercrime act has made it quite challenging for people to freely express themselves. So, perhaps we need to ask ourselves, what aren’t people saying?”
Magufuli has been tough on corruption in the mining sector which has given him popular appeal.
Despite this crackdown, Komba says there seem to be positive steps to make the elections freer than in the past.
“Tanzania has invited international observers and we hope that these observers will give us the answers about the fairness and freeness of the elections, but unfortunately, we only get this information after elections are done. The National Electoral Commission has also allowed the use of alternate IDs in case of voter ID loss, which is also something positive. And, there is still voter education given by various stakeholders.”
Our interviewee said, “Magufuli could easily be re-elected in an completely open and transparent way but people in the CCM are paranoid about the opposition. The concept of a loyal opposition is not one that is deeply embedded.”
If Magufuli wins re-election for a second term – as all of his predecessors since independence have done – then the question is what next? Will he attempt to change the constitution so that he could remain in power as others have done elsewhere in the world?
He added: “I am pretty sure that even if he wanted to, there are enough ambitious and powerful people in the CCM who want their turn at the presidency.”
[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”540″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
