Project Exile: Tajikistan harasses reporter into exile

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]The calls came to Tajik journalist Humayra Bakhtiyar at her sports club, at the shopping center and at home. Whatever she was doing, agents from Tajikistan’s State Committee for National Security wanted her to know that they knew about it. 

Then there were the social media attacks by pro-government trolls: the unflattering photoshopped images of Bakhtiyar and innuendo about her family on Facebook. There were reports attacking her in government media. Finally, there was the official from the former Soviet republic’s security service, still known colloquially as the KGB, who came to the office asking about her family members and why she was putting herself in such a dangerous situation. Would she consider spying on her colleagues for him?

At issue was Bakhtiyar’s reporting on corruption, human rights and other sensitive issues in the central Asian nation for news outlets including the Russian-language Asia-Plus news site, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and Turkey’s Anadolu Agency.

Such reports were particularly sensitive during presidential elections in 2013 and parliamentary elections in 2015, both won by the ruling party of Tajik President Emomali Rahmon amid criticism from outside observers. Fearing for her safety and that of her family, Bakhtiyar moved to Germany in 2015. 

President Rahmon, whose official titles include “Founder of Peace and National Unity,” has ruled the country of 9 million since 1992 in part by imposing severe restrictions on the media. In 2019 Tajikistan ranked 161st of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, which notes that much of the country’s independent media has been eliminated. “Harassment by the intelligence services, intimidation and blackmail are now part of the daily routine” for journalists in the country, according to the Paris-based press freedom group. 

The U.S.-backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, one of the few independent news organizations to operate in the country, is routinely blocked by the government – despite criticism that an RFE/RL local language affiliate has itself become a voice for government propaganda. But RFE/RL is far from alone in facing censorship. Following the killing of four foreign tourists by Islamic State militants last year, much of Tajikistan’s internet was shut down. 

Now living in Hamburg, Germany, Bakhtiyar spoke with Global Journalist’s Kyle LaHucik about her budding career as a Tajik journalist and the threats she faced for reporting criticism of the government. Below, an edited version of their conversation:

Global Journalist: Why did you want to go in to journalism?

Bakhtiyar: I wanted to become a diplomat in my school years. But later, I understood that my family cannot pay for me. I never wanted to become a journalist, but when I started to study, I really loved it. From my third year, I started to work full time. From early morning I’d work, and then in the afternoon I went to university to study. From 2007 to 2009, I worked overnight. Many times I slept in my office. 

GJ: What subjects did you report on?

Bakhtiyar: At first, I started with social issues. But in early 2008, I was sent to parliament to report. [At] first, I really hated it because it was so boring to listen to the old men talking. But later I started to [take] interest. What does it mean? Why are they sitting there? Why are they writing what they are writing? For whom?

…After that, I started to be interested much more about the government, about who is in government, about nepotism and human rights. 

GJ: Tell us about some of the human rights and government issues that interested you.

Bakhtiyar: People really don’t have any rights. When you are getting married, girls have to have this test or papers that say they reserved their virginity and can marry. Even Tajik emigrants who have to move to Russia for work, they also don’t have any rights in Russia and really no rights in Tajikistan. When you go to the hospital there is not good service, and for some doctors you have [pay bribes] because they have really low salaries. 

But from Tajikistan government news you will get information that you are really living in some paradise.

GJ: How did the government try to silence you?

Bakhtiyar: I worked more or less 10 years in Tajikistan. I covered all issues: government, parliamentary corruption, nepotism, and the financial system, which is so horrible

In early 2013, I got some messages from the KGB, the security police: I have to be careful writing, I have to stop covering some issues. In 2013 we had a presidential election, so that’s why I think the security police started to control all mass media. They started to talk to every editor first. They started to push journalists through the editors. Three or four times they contacted my chief editor at a Tajik newspaper and advised them to stop me. 

My chief editor informed me every time that the security police want to talk to me. They have some special topic they want to discuss. Every time I ignored this. I said, “I don’t have anything to share with them.”

Later, they came to my office to talk with me. They asked that I talk to them, and when I talked, they asked me to come to the security office. I didn’t want to go because I was afraid. I heard how some activists and journalists have had some accidents that year.  I said that if you have any official reasons to talk to me, you have to send me an official letter [that states] why, who you are, why you want to talk to me.

GJ: What did the internal security agent say in response?

Bakhtiyar: [He asked] “How are you living? How is your family? What is your father doing? Where is your mother? Is she alive? How are your brothers?”

I got the message that he already knew everything about my life. My parents are divorced for 18 years [something] I never shared with my colleagues. I lived with my father and my stepmother. 

He asked me: “Do you have good relations with your stepmom?”

I tried to be so calm. I told him: “If you are so interested in my family, one day you should come for dinner and I can introduce you to them if they are so important for your office.” 

He started to change our conversation and said, “You are so young, so young and so beautiful. Why are you trying to put yourself in a dangerous situation?…You are doing wrong things, your opinion is wrong, everything that you said is bad in our country is not bad. We should keep our peace. You should support our government, it is [a] really nice government.”

I said, ” I don’t want to hear from you…[I] suggest you’re free to go.”

And he just said, “You can write something as you want, but you can work with us. For example, share about what people are talking [about] around you, especially in your office, your colleagues.” 

I was so angry, I asked him, “Are you serious?”

Then he started to call me many times and every time when he calls me he informed me that he knows where I am at that moment: when I was at home, when I was at my office, when I was in the shopping center or even my sports club. He really persecuted me and later I started to feel that some people are following me on the street, but I tried to ignore it. 

GJ: Did this continue? 

Bakhtiyar: Later they started a social attack. There were many, many of my photos published on social media, some Russian social media but mostly Facebook, because I was really active on Facebook. There were many of my photos [that were] Photoshopped and many, many wrong and dirty rumors about my life, about my family. They started to write that I have some psychological problem because I grew up with a stepmother. All the time I knew that they have just one goal: they want to see me out of journalism.

In 2015, we had a parliamentary election. I was really so active, I wrote about it. In some government newspapers they wrote some articles against me. It makes you a bit tired, morally. During this moment, one of my friends in Tajikistan, my colleague and my friend, he [suggested] that maybe I can get some scholarship outside for a short time and maybe it can help me to get a bit of rest. When I will be out of Tajikistan, they cannot see me every day. Maybe they will forget about me. I was really, really tired to live under such pressure. 

We found a scholarship at [German news network] Deutsche Welle in Bonn, Germany in May 2015. They said that you are free, you can write about anything. Immediately after my second article, the Deutsche Welle editor got a letter of complaint from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan. They invited a Deutsche Welle correspondent in [Tajik capital] Dushanbe in and pushed him to say how I got an internship. What am I doing in Deutsche Welle in Bonn? Who helped me? Why am I writing from Germany about Tajik issues?

My editor just told me: “Don’t be afraid…we will stand behind you. Just continue what you think is right.” 

And I continue to write. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/6BIZ7b0m-08″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Global Journalist / Project Exile” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Project Exile: Turkish journalist lost home and family

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Arzu YildizWhen Turkish journalist Arzu Yildiz reported a major scoop in 2014, she had little idea that the story might lead to the end of her journalism career, the loss of her home, and separation from her family.

Yildiz, then a reporter for the Turkish news site T24, was the first to report that local prosecutors in southern Turkey had intercepted a convoy of trucks bearing Turkish arms heading for Syria.

The disclosure had put Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government in an awkward position, since Turkey had long denied that it was sending aid to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

When Yildiz later published footage of the of the prosecutors being put on trial, she herself was sued by the government. In May 2016, she was stripped of the guardianship of her two young children and sentenced to 20 months in jail – a decision which was stayed pending the approval of an appellate court.

But then Turkey’s climate for the press, already bad, took a sharp turn for the worse. In July 2016, a group of dissident Turkish military officers attempted to overthrow Erdogan in a coup. When it failed, Erdogan’s response was ferocious. Tens of thousands of soldiers and government workers were purged and media outlets viewed as critical of Erdogan were shuttered. In the aftermath, more than 300 journalists were arrested. As for Yildiz, after security forces appeared at her home with a warrant for her arrest, she and daughters Emine, then 7, and the infant Zehra, went into hiding. They lived in secrecy in a single room for five months.

“I could not continue living in this one bedroom,” she says. “It begins to affect you psychologically. Every time the door is knocked, you would think it was the police.”

In November 2016, Yildiz left both girls with their grandparents and fled across the border to a refugee camp in Greece. She was quickly given asylum in Canada and moved to Toronto by herself. In 2018, her eldest daughter Emine joined there, but Zehra, now 3, remains in Turkey.

Now working in a pizzeria in Toronto, Yildiz, 39, spoke with Global Journalist’s Lara Cumming about her career and the high personal cost of doing independent journalism in Turkey. Below, an edited version of their interview:

Global Journalist: How did you get into journalism?

Arzu Yildiz: After I finished school, I was a court reporter for a long time. I reported on the police and the justice system. I never cared about politics or the government I only focused on justice. I worked with Taraf [a liberal Turkish national newspaper] for over five years. After this I tried doing journalism independently at T24 for a couple of years.

For two months I worked [for a newspaper] close to Erdogan’s party, a big newspaper called Türkiye. But they censored my news. After that I quit. All this time, I may be the only woman court reporter who knows the law as much as a prosecutor or judge. When I was doing journalism, I was studying the law. Some prosecutors didn’t read as much as me. I was interested in not only the justice system of Turkey but also the justice [systems] of the world.

GJ: How did you know it was time to leave Turkey?

Yildiz: Two days after the July 15th [2016] coup attempt, the police came to my house. After the coup attempt, a lot of [arrested] people faced torture and no one would have written about it. If I continued to be a court reporter, I would write what is really going on in court and why people were detained.

After the police came, I lived an underground life for five months. One of my daughters was just 7 months old and the other was 7 years old. We lived in one room together.

[Later] I realized that this is no life. I tried to give them a chance. I could not continue living in this one bedroom. It begins to affect you psychologically. Every time the door is knocked, you would think it was the police.

GJ: Are you still in contact with your family in Turkey?

Yildiz: The little one doesn’t know me or who I am, she has no mother. She is in Turkey with my parents. I saw her birthday only through video. I have no contact with her, no telephone calls, no nothing. I divorced my husband and I have no contact with my mother and father also. They lost their daughter too. I didn’t only lose mine.

The [eldest] one had a U.S. visa before. She came to the U.S.A. alone [in September 2018]. One of my friends took her to the Canadian border. My other daughter had no chance to come to Canada. They will not give her a passport because of me.

My mother is 73-years old, when this situation is over I don’t know what will happen. I may never see them [my parents] again. The Canadian government will not issue them a visa.

Some say: “Meet them in another country.” They must think I’m very rich. I cannot go to Ottawa right now because I am working two jobs and only just paying my rent. All of the family is affected, three generations. My oldest daughter, who is with me, always asks why we are separated from her grandparents. My children referred to my mother as their mother.

GJ: What issues did you see with journalism in Turkey before you left?

Yildiz: My goal as a journalist was seeking truth. We have no goals to be heroes or to be famous. We are not actors. We are not singers. We are journalists. The goal is to tell what’s right and who the heroes are through our stories. And if the world starts talking about them, I can say I did my job well.

My problem is with the bureaucracy. I cannot trust politicians, but I should be able to trust the judges. For example, if people drive unsafely in Canada they will be punished by the justice system. They are not scared of the politicians, they are scared only of the justice system. In Turkey there is no trust of the judicial system.

I am not a religious person and I do not believe in any religion. Religion and racism are just the tools the politicians use for their benefit. I believe only in humanity. If I am dying, I do not want someone to define me only as a Turkish journalist but as a human. I do not care how a person looks or what they believe, only if they are honest. If you are a court reporter – like me – your only focus is if someone is innocent or if they are a criminal.

GJ: Do you have any plans to return to Turkey?

Yildiz: Before I came to Canada, I spent time in a refugee camp. The real meaning of being a refugee is not only the loss of the country, but loss of a family and being alone. I came with one t-shirt and no shoes. Believe me, I lost the shoes in the refugee camp.

I came with only cheap things. No mobile phone no nothing. Maybe $200 and that’s it. I will not be able to return to Turkey as they will put me in prison.

GJ: Has the pursuit of your work been worth it? You have done such brave work but also lost so much.

Yildiz: I lost so many things, no one can imagine. If I had the chance to return to the past, I would do this again. But one thing is broken: my heart.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/6BIZ7b0m-08″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Global Journalist / Project Exile” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Project Exile: Editor escaped Sri Lanka after husband’s murder

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Sonali Samarasinghe remembers the last words of her husband Lasantha Wickrematunge on the day he was killed in 2009: “Don’t worry, I got it under control.”

Threats weren’t new to Wickrematunge. As the editor of The Sunday Leader, a Sri Lankan newspaper that published articles exposing government corruption, he’d been followed, attacked with clubs and received a funeral wreath at his office.

Samarasinghe was the chief investigative journalist and consulting editor for the newspaper and also the founding editor-in-chief of its sister paper, The Morning Leader.

Like other journalists, the couple worked in a difficult environment, as their newspapers competed with state-owned newsrooms and faced constant pressure for criticising the government of then-president Mahinda Rajapaksa. In late 2008 and early 2009, Rajapaksa’s government was in the final months of a brutal decades-long civil war with Tamil Tiger rebels. Still, Wickrematunge’s assassination shocked the south Asian nation and would force Samarasinghe into years of exile. 

“For the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, Wickrematunge was the biggest thorn in their flesh,” Samarasinghe wrote in a blog post. “He investigated corrupt military procurement deals, spoke out strongly and passionately for a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict and debunked blatant government propaganda on the war.”

Indeed Wickrematunge’s first wife, Raine, was so fearful for her family’s safety that she left Sri Lanka for Australia in 2002 with the couple’s three children. Samarasinghe worked for Wickrematunge for years before the couple married in 2008, just two months before his death. 

She too made powerful enemies. Samarasinghe was once interrogated for more than four hours by Sri Lanka’s Criminal Investigations Department in an attempt to get her to reveal her sources in an investigation into the central bank’s dealings with a company accused of running a Ponzi scheme. In another incident, an article about tsunami relief accused Rajapaksa and other top officials of siphoning off millions in aid money. The Morning Leader’s printing presses were attacked and copies of the paper burned in 2007 by 15 gunmen after a separate exposé on the family of cabinet minister Mervyn Silva.

On 8 January 2009, Samarasinghe and Wickrematunge received a call from the newspaper while returning home from the pharmacy. It was a warning: they were being followed.

As they got out of their car, two men wearing black fatigues on a black motorcycle sped past them, staring them down, says Samarasinghe in an interview with Global Journalist. The couple went into the house and closed all their doors. Samarasinghe says she tried to keep Wickrematunge at home, but he was determined to go to the office to write his well-known political column. 

On his way to the newspaper during rush hour, Wickrematunge was ambushed and killed in broad daylight by motorcycle-riding attackers, one of at least 19 journalists slain in Sri Lanka for their work since 1992, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Wickrematunge had been prepared for this outcome. He’d already written his own obituary, which included the line: “…when finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.”

“We were up against an administration that had taken impunity to the level of a martial art,” Samarasinghe says.

Samarasinghe continued receiving threats even after Wickrematunge’s assassination. Ttwo weeks later, she escaped to New York.

She became a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in August 2009 and started the independent Lanka Standard news site in 2011. After Harvard, she spent time as a journalist in residence at City University of New York and Ithaca College.

Then in 2015 came an opportunity for justice. Rajapaksa suffered a surprise defeat to former ally Maithripala Sirisena in presidential elections. The six-year-old investigation into Wickrematunge’s death, which had yielded no convictions, was reopened. Samarasinghe was hired by the new administration to work in New York at Sri Lanka’s mission to the United Nations. 

In 2016, a former soldier was found dead with an apparent suicide note in which he claimed responsibility for killing Wickrematunge’s. A police report implicated a special military unit led by Rajapaksa’s brother and defence secretary, Gotbaya Rajapaksa.

Yet progress stalled. Gotbaya, who is also being sued by Wickrematunge’s daughter in US courts for her father’s death, has announced he’s running for president to succeed Sirisena in elections later this year. Both Rajapaksas have denied involvement in the editor’s death. Meanwhile, after a wave of terrorist bombings in April killed more than 250 people, President Sirisena said that investigations into human rights abuses during the Sri Lankan Civil War had weakened the security forces and left the country at risk. 

Samarasinghe spoke with Global Journalist’s Seth Bodine about the killing of her husband, the threats against her, and the prospect of those responsible escaping Sri Lankan justice. Below is an edited version of their interview.

Global Journalist: What was it like being a journalist in Sri Lanka around the time of your husband’s death?

Samarasinghe: We were up against an administration that had taken impunity to the level of a martial art. It had incrementally closed the democratic space, the space for freedom of expression. This didn’t happen overnight. It happened incrementally.

One by one private media organisations were being bought by businessmen or acolytes of the president at the time, Mahinda Rajapaksa. Even his own family. 

Those who were not bought up chose to associate themselves with the ruling regime because then they could engage in lucrative business with the government. The state-controlled media was really state-controlled. It included the nation’s largest newspaper group. So, you could not compete with that.

At the time, when we were working, there was no freedom of information act. Speaking to journalists was actively discouraged by the government.

Even though the constitution provided for freedom of expression, that freedom of expression right was infringed upon by other laws. With emergency power regulations, anything could happen. There was the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was another draconian piece of legislation which really curtailed freedom. And there were other laws, giving the government and the armed forces power to arrest without warrant.

So you could be detained at that time for up to 20 months without charge. Officials were shielded from prosecution so you couldn’t even challenge them. 

The culture of impunity was just staggering. I mean, at that time white vans would go around abducting journalists and activists. Some of them never to be seen again, some of them beaten to a pulp and thrown on the side of the road.

GJ: Was there any warning of the danger to you and Lasantha?

Samarasinghe: We weren’t given any warning about the motorcyclists except a few minutes before when someone from the office called to say that he was being followed. But before that, there were certain things that were happening.

For instance, he received a cutting of a newspaper which was drenched in red ink. This was like a week before. He himself knew. He was talking to me, and he said, “It’s very dangerous now.”

Then, two days before Wickrematunge’s death, a very independent TV network was destroyed. They came in and they burned the place down. 

GJ: What led you to flee?

Samarasinghe: It was the trauma of going through the death of my husband in such a violent manner. Then, neighbours let us know that the motorcyclists had come back and were circling the premises.

So I immediately left my home. My mother didn’t know where I was, I didn’t tell anyone where I was, and I stayed with a friend.

Meanwhile things were happening at home. Two men walked into the house, and despite my mother’s protest, they very aggressively started taking photos of the inside and outside of my home. They photographed my little niece. Then they rushed out of the house. So, within two weeks I realised I had to leave.

Both the Australian and American ambassadors reached out to help. And ultimately, I fled to Europe and found shelter in the home of a European ambassador who took me in for two months.

GJ: What happened at The Sunday Leader after Lasantha’s death?

Samarasinghe: For the two weeks I was in charge of the newspaper following the assassination of my husband, I wrote the political column focusing on his death, the then-president’s reaction, and the immediate aftermath. I also had other journalists intensely focus on the investigation.

We ran half-page ads on a black background of threats made by president Rajapaksa to Lasantha. However, I was compelled to flee the country. The newspaper ground to a halt and understandably diluted itself and went into survival mode.

GJ: How did you feel when you left? 

Samarasinghe: You really feel like your country has betrayed you. And you also have to face so many emotions. Those who knew Lasantha just denied knowing him. Everyone was scared. It was such a horrid time.

Some of my friends and family would no longer ride in the same car with me because I had to drive to work in those two weeks, fearing that they would be collateral damage, that I would be the next obvious target. For a long time, I couldn’t even convince a caretaker or friend to check in on my house because they were just scared people were watching it, or that they could be attacked or targeted.

Superstition was doing its bit. Nobody wanted to rent or buy a home they felt was one of tragedy – because it was a home of a couple whose dreams were dashed within two months of marriage. So they thought it was bad luck.

All these things, all of these cultural and political issues were just swirling around. It was a really torrid time because of that.

It was just the panic of having to leave and having to look undefeated for the cameras because you have to look strong. The panic of not seeing familiar faces, the stress of coming to an unknown place.

Language had failed me. And I was a journalist who wrote 10,000 words or more a week. It was then that I learned and was relieved to know that it was post-traumatic stress disorder. 

GJ: Before Rajapaksa surprisingly lost the 2015 election, did you imagine that you would ever go back to Sri Lanka?

Samarasinghe: I had just abandoned all hope of getting back to Sri Lanka. I thought this was going to go on forever. In 2015, before the election, even the New York Times had an editorial that said the regime is going to remain. None of us expected this to happen. The next day, we all bought tickets to go back to Sri Lanka. Everyone was buying tickets. 

GJ: Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was defence minister at the time of your husband’s death, and who was linked to his killing by a police report, has announced he will run for president this year. Are you upset that the people responsible for his death are still free?

Samarasinghe: Investigations into Lasantha’s murder are still continuing. It is not for me to comment at this time. The people of Sri Lanka will decide in democratically-held elections. 

I will say this: I believe in the rule of law and I believe in divine justice. As Dr. King noted: “Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a place and Christ a cross, but that same Christ will rise up and split history into AD and BC, so that even the life of Caesar must be dated by his name…the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/6BIZ7b0m-08″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Global Journalist / Project Exile” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Project Exile: Threatened in Mexico, facing deportation in the USA

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”106335″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]On a sunny day in June 2008, in the small city of Ascensión in northern Mexico, journalist Emilio Gutiérrez received a phone call from a friend. She was very nervous and said she needed to meet him in person urgently. When the friend, a local teacher named Olga, arrived, her message was unequivocal.

“They are going to kill you,” she said. A family member she knew was in the Mexican military and had told her he had been assigned to be part of a special project to kill the journalist. He was telling Olga in order to warn Gutiérrez. A single father who had been threatened by the military previously and recently noticed that he was under surveillance, Gutiérrez took his 15-year-old son Oscar and left home. Within days, he was heading towards the US border in El Paso, Texas.

“I was never interested in coming to the United States because I liked my job, I like my country, I had my family there, I practically had everything,” Emilio says, in an interview with Global Journalist. “I never got a passport because I didn’t want to leave Mexico.”

El Paso means “the step” in Spanish. And for Emilio it was a step away from fear and persecution; and he hoped, a step towards freedom. He never imagined coming to the USA would mean family separation and a tedious decade-long legal battle that would leave both his and Oscar’s life in limbo – and facing repeated deportation orders. His life in exile highlights not only the dangers Mexican journalists face: according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 32 have been killed in Mexico since 2008, the year Emilio left. But it also demonstrates the challenges journalists seeking asylum in the USA confront in working through a slow-moving and sometimes capricious immigration system.

Boots and hat reporter

Emilio’s story began in Nuevo Casas Grande in the northern state of Chihuahua as a curious and ambitious 18-year-old. He started in journalism as a photographer for a local newspaper and then began reporting. Motivated by the idealism of many young journalists, Emilio hoped to improve society by changing people’s views of the world.

“In my country, we have had to live a lot of despair because of poverty and lack of education,” he says. “A feeling of nonconformity and rebellion was born in me at a young age knowing that I was able to change the mentality of people through the media.”

In 2000, Emilio moved to Ascensión, a city of 13,000 about two hours southwest of Ciudad Juarez and its sister city of El Paso, Texas. Much of his job was in the countryside, and Emilio became a boots-and-cowboy-hat reporter for the newspaper El Diario del Noroeste, covering issues from local politics to school events. But by 2005, life was changing in northern Mexico as conflict among drug cartels and between the Mexican state and criminal gangs sent crime and violence soaring – the start of what would be a dark era in Mexican history.

A power struggle between the Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s Sinaloa cartel and the Gulf cartel left as many as 1,000 dead in 2005 and made border cities like Nuevo Laredo the scene of nightly gun battles. President Vicente Fox responded by deploying the army to northern Mexico to try to control the violence. But reporters weren’t immune to the toll: in 2014 and 2015, six Mexican journalists were murdered after reporting on organised crime and government corruption.

In early 2005, the mayor of a small Mexican border town called Puerto Palomas contacted Emilio to complain that the Mexican army had seized control of a hotel in town named La Estrella, according to documents later filed in US immigration court. Emilio published an article 4 February of that year titled “Demands to Stop Impunity,” criticising the army’s takeover of La Estrella. Like many sensitive newspaper stories, the article ran without a byline – so as to offer some measure of protection to the reporter.

It didn’t work. About a week later, Emilio received a call from an army officer. One of his superiors wanted to meet him in person. “Either you come see us, or we will come to see you,” he was told.

Meeting the general

Emilio came to the meeting in downtown Ascensión accompanied by Oscar, then 12, thinking he would meet the officer in a hotel dining room. It was evening when he arrived, and Emilio left Oscar in the car. But the journalist never made it to the hotel. Instead, he was taken to a pickup truck where he later testified he was met by the Mexican Army general Alfonso Garcia Vega. 

Vega was upset. “So you are the son of a bitch that’s writing these stupidities?” Vega asked him, according to court records.

There wouldn’t be another article, Vega warned Gutiérrez. Mexico’s secretary of defence was very angry, the general warned. “Why don’t you write about drug traffickers?” Vega asked him. “You don’t write about them, but you write about us. We, who get rid of drug traffickers. I feel like getting you in my truck to take you to the mountains, so you can become aware of our work and how we get rid of the drug traffickers.”

Soldiers surrounded Emilio, nearly pinning him against the general’s truck, he later told a US immigration court. He was eventually released, but Emilio wondered if it was only because people from the town had passed by him and greeted him while he was speaking with the soldiers.

When Emilio made it back to Oscar and his vehicle, he drove away and then telephoned his editor to tell him what had happened. The next day El Diario struck back, publishing an article about the incident headlined “Members of the Military Threaten Reporter’s Life,” based on Emilio’s account.

He also sought to raise the issue with the government. Emilio filed a complaint about the incident with the Chihuahua state prosecutor’s office and wrote to the National Human Rights Commission in Mexico City. The prosecutor’s office told him they would investigate the threat, but Emilio never heard from them again. The human rights commission conducted an investigation and concluded that no members of the Mexican military had been responsible for the incident. However, the commission did send a letter to the local command of the Mexican army, instructing them to avoid acts that intimidate or hinder freedom of expression.

Emilio Gutiérrez. (Credit: Lynette Clemetson)

Emilio Gutiérrez. (Credit: Lynette Clemetson)

Soldiers in the house

This outcome didn’t make Emilio feel safe. So over the next three years, Gutiérrez went back to reporting local news, politics and sports, taking care not to report on the Mexican military. It was a big subject to ignore: by 2006 the Mexican military was in an all-out war with drug cartels that killed hundreds of people each month. For a time, Chihuahua was the scene of the bloodiest fighting, with 6,757 deaths from cartel-related violence between 2006 and 2010, according to the Associated Press.

For Emilio, there were no further threats. That is, until one night in early May 2008. He and Oscar were at home when he heard a loud noise outside his home just after midnight. In court, Emilio later testified that he went to his living room and saw a group of about 50 soldiers. They kicked in his front door and pointed their guns at him as he stood in his living room in his underwear.

After Emilio told them he was a journalist, they forced him to the ground and told him they were searching the house for drugs and guns after receiving an anonymous report – though they had no search warrant. After the soldiers were through and prepared to leave, one soldier, who Emilio later identified as a lieutenant, told him to “behave” and gave him a telephone number to call in the event that he wanted to report any illegal activity.

When the men had left, Emilio called the police to report the incident – but no police ever came. The next day, Emilio told his editor of the events, and soon thereafter he helped the paper publish an article headlined “Soldiers Raid Journalist’s Home”.

That didn’t end things. A few weeks later, Emilio noticed men with military-style haircuts watching his home. Frightened, he and Oscar went to spend the night at a friend’s house. That night, he got the call from Olga warning him that the military was planning to kill him – and he and Oscar were soon driving towards the US border and safety.

Emilio and Oscar, then 15, arrived at the border without passports. Emilio told US border agents that he was a journalist who had received death threats and was seeking asylum. The two were separated. Oscar was sent to a detention centre for minors for seven months, while Emilio was held in a separate detention centre.

“My son is my life,” Gutierrez says. “To be separate and to not know what was coming destroyed a part of our lives.” 

During two and a half months in custody, father and son were able to speak on the phone briefly just three times. The two were released in Texas in early 2009 to await adjudication of their asylum applications by US immigration authorities.

In the meantime, the Gutiérrezes moved to Las Cruces, New Mexico, about an hour’s drive from El Paso. After seven months of detention, Emilio’s financial situation was dire – so he sold his house in Mexico for a fraction of its value. After a time, he received a US work permit and took as many jobs as possible to survive while awaiting an asylum hearing. He did landscaping, washed dishes and eventually ran his own food truck.

Trial by immigration court

The case moved slowly through the system, and Emilio had to periodically report to US immigration authorities to show he hadn’t fled. He cycled through a number of immigration lawyers. Hearings were postponed, and months turned into years. Oscar, no longer a boy, left high school and began culinary school. In November 2016, seven years after the Gutiérrezes left Mexico, Emilio had a hearing on the merits of his asylum case before a US immigration court in El Paso. 

It didn’t go well. The government’s immigration counsel questioned why would be targeted by the military if his name wasn’t on the offending articles, why the journalist who covered the hotel takeover would be threatened, but not the mayor, the original source of the articles. The government also suggested that the raid on Gutiérrezes’ home had been routine at that time of the drug war, and suggested that if he felt threatened, Emilio could have moved elsewhere in Mexico. The prosecutor also questioned why the journalist had rejected an offer of bodyguards from Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission and instead chose to remain in the USA, despite the fact that the bodyguards might come from the Mexican military itself.

In July of 2017, US immigration judge Robert Hough ruled against the Gutiérrezes. Among other conclusions, Hough noted that Emilio had failed to obtain corroborating testimony and documents from witnesses in Mexico. The judge questioned why he had fled to the USA instead of moving elsewhere in Mexico, and whether the Mexican military would still kill him if he returned home. Emilio and Oscar were ordered to be removed from the USA, nine years after arrival.

The removal didn’t come immediately. Emilio and his lawyer sought to appeal Hough’s decision before the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals. Yet that would take time. Fortunately for Emilio, he had gained some notable allies in the US media. In October of 2017, he went to Washington, DC to accept the National Press Club’s John Aubuchon Press Freedom Award.

In his acceptance speech at a black-tie gala, Emilio criticised the Mexican government for failing to protect journalists – but also blasted the USA, saying that American officials were failing to protect human rights at home even as they lectured other countries on the subject.

Detained again

Just over two months later, in December 2017, Emilio and Oscar appeared in El Paso for a routine immigration check-in while their appeal was still pending. To their surprise, they were placed in handcuffs and informed they would be deported immediately. 

Emilio’s lawyer, Eduardo Beckett, managed to win an emergency stay of the deportation order from the Board of Immigration Appeals just before they could be taken back to Mexico. But instead of being released to go home pending a hearing before the board’s appellate body, the two were placed back in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency detention centre. 

The months ticked by. Emilio grew frustrated and worried. He didn’t have access to his blood pressure medication. Life in the detention centre was grim.

“They destroy you mentally, physically and morally,” he said. “The person that isn’t sick gets sick in the detention centres.”

Outside the El Paso detention centre, Emilio’s supporters were looking for a lifeline. In February 2018, the National Press Club reached out to Lynette Clemetson, the director of a programme for journalists at the University of Michigan. The National Press Club was seeking support for an amicus brief in the Gutiérrezes’ case.

Clemetson started to read more about Gutiérrez and in April of 2018, she and the NPR journalist Luis Trelles went to meet him and Oscar in the detention centre in El Paso. When she met Gutiérrez, she decided to interview him for one of the university’s prestigious Knight-Wallace fellowships.

“Emilio has faced a bureaucracy and a migratory system that does not see the danger that he has faced due to his job,” said Trelles.

Clemetson and Trelles were sympathetic – and soon offered him a fellowship, but Gutiérrez was unable to accept since he was still in detention.

In May of 2018, there was a moment of victory. After the National Press Club, the Pen America Center and 16 other organisations filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Emilio’s behalf,  the Board of Immigration Appeals stayed the Gutiérrezes deportation order and ordered the El Paso immigration court to rehear the case. Despite this, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept the Gutiérrezes in detention for two additional months. After seven months in detention,  Emilio and Oscar were released in July. Clemetson and the Gutiérrezes flew together to Michigan – where Emilio began his fellowship.

“His case exemplifies what we are supposed to stand up for,” said Clemetson.

Emilio Gutiérrez has received support from the Knight-Wallace programme at the University of Michigan as well as from numerous press freedom groups. (Credit: Lynette Clemetson)

A fleeting victory

During his time at the University of Michigan, Emilio took classes on migration, human rights and English. University life in Michigan was a change from Las Cruces, but still his future was clouded by uncertainty. The rehearing on his asylum case was still pending, and though Emilio had more allies helping him prepare supporting evidence, including a brief from a who’s who list of the most prominent journalism associations, nothing was certain. 

Among the problems for his asylum case was the fact that Alfonso Garcia Vega, the Mexican army general who threatened Emilio back in 2005, had since died. Despite this, Emilio argued that he still faced threats from other officers who worked with Vega and from the Mexican military generally, given his outspoken criticism of its corruption during his years in the USA. 

In addition, Emilio still had been unable to obtain written corroboration of his accounts of threats from his former editor at El Diario or from the friend who warned him of the threat to his life. “Nobody wrote a letter of support because they are afraid,” says Gutierrez. 

Another challenge was that the rehearing of his case was once again assigned to Judge Hough in El Paso, the same judge who had denied Emilio’s initial asylum request and ordered he and Oscar be deported. Such rulings by immigration judges are the norm in the El Paso immigration court, where on average only six per cent of asylum requests were approved between 2013 and 2018, according to data from Syracuse University’s TRAC database. That compares with a national approval rate for asylum of 35 per cent in 2018. 

In October of last year, a decade after they left Mexico, Emilio and Oscar had their request for asylum heard a second time in El Paso. In addition to Emilio, Clemetson, of the Knight-Wallace Foundation, testified in court on his behalf. But unfortunately for the Gutierrezes, the outcome was still the same. In a decision issued on 4 March, Hough found that Emilio’s testimony was “weak” and not credible. He found that the documentary evidence supporting Emilio’s argument that his life was threatened in Mexico to be insufficient, and that the threats against him by the Mexican military did not meet the legal test for demonstrating persecution. 

“Nothing in the record indicates that the respondent’s notoriety as a journalist would outlast his decade-long absence from Mexico, or that the military would single him out,” Hough wrote. 

For a second time, Oscar and Emilio were ordered to be deported back to Mexico. 

Hough, of course, could be right. Perhaps those who targeted him in the Mexican military have moved on.

But in the meantime, Mexico is as dangerous as ever for journalists. In January, a radio journalist who had been under protection by a Mexican government programme to defend journalists and human rights defenders was found dead near a highway in Baja California. Since then, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, another Baja California journalist was badly beaten by baseball-wielding men; a radio reporter in Sonora was shot dead in his home; an Oaxaca journalist survived being shot in the back and arm; and a sports reporter in Sinaloa was found dead after being apparently beaten to death. 

Nor is there reason to believe that the Mexican government can keep the military from carrying out attacks on civilians it chooses to target. A study published in 2017 by the Washington Office on Latin America found that of 505 investigations opened by Mexico’s attorney general into human rights violations by members of the military, just 16 ended with a conviction. Nor is the government better at investigating attacks on journalists. Attacks on reporters in Mexico are so common that the government has a special prosecutor to investigate such crimes. Since its creation in 2010, the office has opened 1,000 investigations, but obtained just seven convictions, according to Human Rights Watch. 

In an interview with Global Journalist, Emilio says he’s frustrated with the US immigration system and plans another appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Yet with two adverse rulings against him, his chances appear slim. In the meantime, he and Oscar live with the knowledge that they might be deported at any time. Still, Emilio is determined that no matter the outcome, he can’t go back to Mexico and live safely. 

“I hope the judge realises that we are not asking for asylum because we are looking for a green card, we are seeking asylum to preserve our lives,” he says.

 

Note: Global Journalist executive editor Kathy Kiely has done advocacy for the Gutierrezes through the National Press Club. Kiely was not involved in the editing or reporting of this story.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/6BIZ7b0m-08″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Global Journalist / Project Exile” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK