18 May 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
There was an unsettling moment in the normally demure Leveson Inquiry last week.
As the 10 May hearing began Lord Justice Leveson announced he would be calling Independent on Sunday editor John Mullin to appear to discuss an article published the previous Sunday Leveson said disclosed details included in Andy Coulson’s confidential witness statement.
Coulson, the former News of the World editor and David Cameron’s ex-communications chief, was due to appear that afternoon. Under Inquiry protocol, witness statements are confidential, and Leveson has made clear his distaste for leaks, issuing restriction orders under section 19 of the Inquiries Act that prohibit prior publication of the statements outside of the Inquiry’s confidentiality circle.
Summoned under section 21 of the Inquiries Act, Mullin appeared, and was robust in his defence: he told Leveson that the story — which revealed Coulson held shares in News Corp while working at No. 10 — had been confirmed by three sources before the leaked copy of the witness statement came to his attention on the Wednesday evening prior to publication.
He said he was aware of the Inquiry’s restriction order but believed it did not apply to the story, as none of the sources relied on Coulson’s statement.
It quickly became rather unsettling, with junior counsel David Barr questioning why Mullin had read the statement at all and implying it was used as a fourth source for the article. A defiant Mullin did not budge, repeating that the story had been confirmed — “copper-bottomed” in his words — by the time the statement reached him.
“We didn’t use the statement as a source,” he told the Inquiry, adding:
We may not be the world’s greatest newspaper, in fact we may not be the greatest newspaper in our own building, but we’re good honest journalists and we try and do our job as best as we can do it. This is an issue of massive public importance. The fact that your Inquiry is going on shouldn’t stop us from doing good honest journalism as we go ahead. It was our misfortune that through good honest journalism we got this statement after we had already substantiated the story.
Later in the week Leveson said he would not pursue action under Section 36 of the 2005 Inquiries Act against the newspaper.
Even for an interested (and, if I may say so, pretty dedicated) Leveson watcher such as myself, exchanges of the Barr-Mullin kind made me question the Inquiry. Mullin explained clearly how he believed he did not break the restriction order; was it necessary for Barr to press further on the other three sources?
Besides being unnecessary, it was futile: journalists don’t reveal sources. At that moment, the gulf between the lawyers brought into examine the standards of the press and the journalists giving evidence had never seemed so wide, or so problematic.
In printing the Coulson story Mullin had done what good editors do: fill their pages with informed and readable content that serves the person buying the newspaper.
The judge might be a few months away yet from setting in stone his recommendations for what the country’s press regulation system should look like, but watching a lawyer trying to get a newspaper editor to shed light on his sources did little to calm fears of a chilling atmosphere towards the press and freedom of expression.
These fears aren’t just speculation: various crime correspondents across regional and national titles told the Inquiry during their evidence in the second module that previously open channels of communication between them and police forces had been shut down (see here, here and here).
The episode might have been nothing more than a roadblock, and Leveson has said that no inferences should be made from the orders he issues and his approach to press regulation.
But Mullin summarised it perfectly when he said the Inquiry — fascinating and illuminating though it may be — should not stop good, honest journalism.
To do so would go against the freedom and diversity of expression that British newspapers are built on.
Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index, where she covers the Leveson Inquiry. She tweets at @martaruco
18 May 2012 | Russia
Vladimir Putin’s inauguration on 7 May was marked with mass protest actions, arrests and clashes with police, which have continued for the last two weeks and seem unlikely to stop.
Since the inaguration ceremony, protesters have been holding an anti-Kremlin action in Moscow’s Chistye Prudy boulevard, in defiance of authorities. Opposition figures Alexey Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov were sentenced to 15 days of administrative arrest for allegedly not following orders from police. Eventually, protesters convinced police they had the right to camp in their home city. The police forbade them from using tents, sound-amplifying equipment and told them to keep off the lawns.
The camp was attended by several hundred people: different political groups, representatives, and politically active citizens, who don’t support a particular party or movement. They rejected opposition leaders, such as Sergei Udaltsov, Alexey Navalny, Ilya Yashin and Ilya Ponomarev as authorities and established a people’s assembly — a collective self-government institution where all the protesters decide organisational issues.
The camp on Chistie Prudy has become known as Occupy Abai, after Kazakh poet Abai Kunanbaev, whose monument stands in the centre of protest camp. It has became a masterpiece of self-organisation, to the pride of Moscow anarchists, who were widely represented in opposition camp. Special work groups made sandwiches and tea, cleaned the camp territory and scheduled lectures, mainly about protest movements.
Notable Russian writers and poets gathered thousands of people to march through Moscow boulevard ring against mass detentions during Putin’s inauguration and his presidency, in support of OccupyAbai.
But this week the situation changed. Basmanny court ruled that the camp must be removed from Chistye Prudy by Moscow central district prefecture within less than 24 hours. The police broke up the camp at 6 am, when no journalists were around and protesters were asleep. Tens of people were arrested when they said they didn’t want to leave the camp. According to them, policemen took away protesters’ food, water and the box with the cash donated by their supporters, which contained up to 250 000 roubles (around £5000 GBP).
The protesters roamed to another central square, Kudrinskaya, where they again were attacked by the police, who claimed protesters didn’t have special permission to share food and water with each other. Tens of people were arrested, including Khimki forest defence leader Evgeniya Chirikova. Opposition activist Ilya Yashin was sentenced to 10 days of administrative arrest. The others stayed, fearing riot police can arrest them any time.
The district’s municipal deputies from United Russia and the Communist party blocked attempts from local opposition deputies to legalise the protesters’ camp at Barrikadnaya by granting it the status of a festival.
Meanwhile United Russia deputies in State Duma prepared a bill, which will toughen the fines for those who break rules of holding rallies. Such charges are often brought against Putin’s protesters in Moscow courts. Hundreds of people protested against the bill in front of State Duma building, but didn’t seem to convince United Russia deputies.
Alexei Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov, who were arrested during peaceful protest actions on 9 May, are considered prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. “These people were persecuted for having realised their right to express themselves,” – the organisation head in Russia Sergei Nikitin said to Interfax news agency. The other protesters are persecuted for the same reason, but they are not famous enough to be considered political prisoners by world human rights organisations.
17 May 2012 | Index Index, minipost, United Kingdom
A contempt of court charge brought against former NI Secretary Peter Hain regarding criticisms he made of a judge in Northern Ireland has been dropped. Hain had written to Attorney General John Larkin about the remarks, stressing he never intended to question Lord Justice Paul Girvan’s motivation in handling a judicial review. Larkin said the case against Mr Hain — who had faced a charge of “scandalising a judge” despite doubts from his lawyers over the existence of the offence — no longer needed to continue.
15 May 2012 | Middle East and North Africa
On 5 May the Bahraini regime arrested prominent human rights activist and 2012 Index award winner Nabeel Rajab for inciting violence on social networking sites. This is the second time Rajab has been arrested for so-called “cyber crimes”, and last year the regime accused him of publishing false information on Twitter.
These attacks on free speech illustrate how authoritarian regimes can use social media as a convenient “evidence-gathering” tool to prosecute those who dare speak out. Indeed, Rajab’s arrest is a warning shot to others: a reminder that engaging in online activism could result in a prison sentence.
While the fear of arrest is an important concern for many activists using social media, there are other factors at work that might deter people from criticising the Bahraini regime. One of these is trolling, an aggressive form of online behaviour directed at other web-users. It usually comes from anonymous accounts, and its severity can range from death threats and threats of rape, to spiteful comments and personal abuse. It is particularly common on Twitter. Here’s a little taster of what I’ve experienced:
@marcowenjones: ‘don’t you worry, we’ll cross paths one day. You’ll see, and I’ll remind of these days while my cock is inside u’ – Anonymous Troll
Human rights activists and journalists often find themselves being targeted by Bahrain’s internet trolls. Al Jazeera journalist Gregg Carlstrom tweeted: “Bahrain has by far the hardest-working Twitter trolls of any country I’ve reported on”. J. David Goodman of the New York Times writes about how internet trolls are attempting to ‘cajole, harass and intimidate commentators and journalists’ who are critical of the Bahrain government. Bahraini journalist Lamees Dhaif says that much of this trolling panders to Gulf Arab audiences, and that women are often accused of being promiscuous while men are accused of homosexuality.
For the thick-skinned, trolling might have no effect, but not everyone can brush it off so easily. Some users I have interviewed in the course of my PhD research have admitted that trolling has stopped them tweeting anything critical of the regime. Others have “protected” their Twitter accounts, which means that what they write can only be read by users approved by the author, thereby limiting their audiences. Trolling can therefore be seen as a type of bullying, one that uses intimidation to force people to engage in self-censorship. It is especially effective in times of political upheaval, when there is the constant threat of arbitrary detention or even torture. As Global Voices‘ MENA editor Amira Al Hussaini once said: “cyberbullying = censorship! Welcome to the new era of freedom in #Bahrain”.
Trolling in Bahrain has became so severe that a report commissioned to investigate human rights abuses in the country last year actually mentioned it. In particular, it focused on the actions of @7areghum, a Twitter account that “openly harassed, threatened and defamed certain individuals, and in some cases placed them in immediate danger”. The legal experts charged with compiling the report concluded that @7areghum broke Bahraini law and international law. Despite this, the Bahrain government do not appear to have asked the US government to subpoena Twitter to release information about the account.
Even harsh new laws designed to punish those guilty of online defamation seem little more than an attempt to intimidate those thinking of engaging in dissent. The insincerity of such laws is highlighted by the fact that the government are paying enormous amounts of money to PR companies to engage in clandestine activities to improve Bahrain’s image. Indeed, it appears that the managing director of one such company, which received 636,000 USD (approximately 385,000 GBP) to do PR work for the Bahraini government, runs a blog which routinely defames activists. The government seems happy to let this slide, further fuelling the belief that some internet trolls work for PR companies paid by the regime to spread propaganda and marginalise dissent.
Although it can be notoriously difficult to track down trolls and cyber-bullies, the government’s unwillingness to condemn the likes of @7areghum suggest tacit support of such methods. The recent announcement that the government would take action against all those who tarnish Bahrain’s image on social media also corroborates the notion that cyber laws only apply to those who oppose the regime. In the meantime, expect trolling to continue, for it is a useful form of devolved social control, one that allows the government to distance itself from accusations of censorship.
Marc Owen Jones is a blogger and PhD candidate at Durham University. He tweets at @marcowenjones
