13 Jul 2021 | Afghanistan, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117075″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]I was on a conference call with my colleague Ajmal Omari a while ago when we were briefly interrupted by what seemed like static. The disruption was no more than the usual challenges of internet connectivity one faces while working in Afghanistan, and we continued our conversation.
After the call, Ajmal texted me to inform me that the “interruptions” were actually a number of BM-1 rockets hitting the neighbourhood of his office. While he and his colleagues survived the attack, there was considerable damage to their building and vehicles parked outside. For Ajmal, a dedicated, talented Afghan reporter and journalist, this was yet another close call.
Despite much progress in the area of free speech and expression, particularly in the years that followed the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan is a high-risk country for the journalists who work here. The risk is exacerbated for local reporters who face threats not only from the insurgent groups, but also from the strongmen and war lords that have gained power and influence in the country over the last two decades.
The situation has worsened since the US-initiated political settlement in 2019. The eventual deal that the US administration struck with the Taliban in February 2020 saw the start of a new chapter in violence in Afghanistan, one that was more bloody than anything this generation of Afghans had experienced.
Targeted violence, much of it coming from an emboldened Taliban, saw a spike in assassinations of civil activists, government officials and Afghan journalists. According to Human Rights Watch, “Taliban commanders and fighters have engaged in a pattern of threats, intimidation, and violence against members of the media”. At least 11 Afghan journalists were killed in 2020, and five more have been murdered this year, four of them women. Many others, in the meanwhile, have had several “close calls” like the one Ajmal witnessed.
Several journalists who have faced threats are seeking safe spaces in other countries, while those who can’t leave find themselves displaced internally. Over the last year, I have met and interviewed many Afghan journalists who are on the constant move to be able to survive the threats they face in their provinces. The violent threats they face are not only inhuman, but also a major blow to the Afghanistan’s free press.
One such journalist is Habibullah Sarwary, who has worked as a journalist for a decade and half in one of the most dangerous, albeit vibrant, places on Earth. Sarwary, whose name I have changed to protect his identity, is now in exile from his home in southern Afghanistan.
“I have covered everything, from war to development; I have exposed corrupt warlords and documented the rise of insurgency in the country. I have also reported on the more beautiful side of Afghanistan and its culture. But now I am a marked man,” Sarwary told me. While Sarwary is no stranger to threats arising from his profession, the murder of a colleague at the hands of the insurgent group forced him to take the threats more seriously.
Today, Sarwary is a displaced man, seeking to go home to his family. “I can’t return because the Taliban leaders have threaten to kill me if I do. My family has tried to negotiate with them but they won’t let me return,” he said, talking from a safe house where he has been holed up for the past 10 months.
As the violence in the south, and across the country, worsens, Sarwary’s hope of returning home fades further. Aside from the mental stress and physical discomfort he faces, Sarwary is also out of a job. “The south was my turf, it is my home and I am most familiar with its issues. Here I can’t do any useful work or make money to support my family back home,” he said. “I have run out of savings, and am surviving on the kindness of friends,” he added, the sadness evident in his voice.
He hopes the warring parties are able negotiate a political settlement that could reduce the violence. However, he urges the Taliban to allow him to return to his home so he can document the historical changes taking place in Afghanistan. “I should be there right now telling the story of Afghanistan,” he said.
There seems to be next to no hope of improvement in the near future. In the last three months, the withdrawal of US and Nato forces has furthered invigorated the Taliban who have launched increased military attacks on many districts across the country. Afghan journalists are risking their lives to report on these violent developments and often get targeted by warring parties who do not always provide the press the immunity they should.
The situation is worse for women in media, who not only face threats from the insurgent but also from the fundamentalist elements in society who disapprove of them. A recent report by the Afghan Journalist Safety Committee (AJSC) revealed that over 300 women in media—18 per cent of the total number of the country’s female press—quit journalism in a span of six months in 2020, reducing an already small community to the fringes of extinction.
The AJSC report also noted that nine of the 34 provinces in Afghanistan did not have a single female journalist employed by a news service. In a country where many social spaces remain gender-segregated, lack of women’s presence in media essentially means that women’s voices, concerns and issues from these areas are excluded from the national debate and discussions, not very unlike the days of the Taliban regime.
Today, as the Taliban attempts to control more territory and destabilise the rest of the country, Afghan journalists are very concerned over the future of free media in the country—a celebrated gain of the last two decades. Afghan media houses that have flourished since the fall of the Taliban had thrived because of the relatively unregulated media landscape, providing a unique platform for Afghans to vocalise their political, social and cultural diversity.
Their future in the country now remains uncertain, especially in parts where the Taliban already has some control. The insurgent group has never been one to encourage free and inclusive speech, and has often used its military might to suppress vanguards of freedom of expression. In many places, media businesses have already restrained their operations; in other regions they are withdrawing investments. The eventual fall out of this is bound to impact the unbiased, unrestricted flow of critical information. The information blackout will in turn contribute to suppressing civic and social rights of the Afghans.
It has never been more clear than it is now, that increasing attacks on Afghan media are an attempt to trigger an intellectual blackout of an entire generation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
9 Jul 2021 | Media Freedom, Netherlands, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117066″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Dutch crime journalist Peter R de Vries is fighting for his life in a hospital in Amsterdam, after he was shot in the head on Tuesday evening. He had just left the studio of a TV show to which he is a regular contributor. Two suspects have been arrested.
De Vries is one of the best-known journalists in the Netherlands and is recognised for his deep commitment to the victims of the crimes he investigates. Tenacious like a pitbull, he pursues their stories to deliver justice.
He doesn’t shy away from crossing the boundaries of journalism either: he recently started a crowdfunding campaign to raise one million euros to be used as tip money to help solve a cold case of a missing student dating back to 1983.
The attempt on his life is likely to be connected to another step he took away from journalism: he became the confidant of Nabil B., a Crown witness in a trial against an exceptionally violent drugs gang. Although police haven’t commented on the attempted murder yet, few doubt that this is the context in which it needs to be placed.
In an interview with Index on Censorship, De Vries’ colleague Gerlof Leistra, a crime reporter for weekly EW Magazine for more than 30 years, bluntly stated: “This murder attempt is not an attack on press freedom and is not related to journalism.”
Some may question this view; investigative journalists have often pushed at the boundaries in order to secure the story.
Leistra said he has always respected De Vries as a colleague, and pointed out that De Vries never focuses on organised crime in his journalistic investigations. Leistra said: “With his stories and book about the Heineken abduction and murder in 1983 as an exception, he focused on cold cases, deceit, scams. He’s a fantastic man, who could get genuinely wound up about an unjust parking ticket for an old lady. He crossed a journalistic line though when he became Nabil B.’s confidant.”
To be accepted as such by the authorities and get access to his client, De Vries became an employee of the lawyer’s office that represented the Crown witness. It was a clear risk.
The so-called Marengo trial revolves around one of the most violent organised crime organisations ever uncovered in the Netherlands. On trial are the gang’s leader Ridouan Taghi and more than a dozen of his accomplices.
The pursuit of the gang has already led to the murder of others connected with the case. In 2018, Nabil B.’s brother was murdered by Taghi’s men. A year later, Derk Wiersum, Nabil B.’s lawyer, was also murdered. Despite the risk, De Vries refused personal protection.
In a recent interview with magazine Vrij Nederland, De Vries said: “I’m not a scared person, but Nabil’s brother and his previous lawyer were murdered so you don’t have to be hysterical to think something may happen. That’s part of the job. A crime reporter who thinks ‘it’s all getting a bit too intense now’ when the going gets tough, should instead work for Libelle,” referring to a weekly women’s magazine.
Crime journalist Leistra said that the murder attempt is an attack on the rechtsstaat, the system of legal institutions that upholds and protects the state of law. Thomas Bruning, general secretary of the Dutch Journalists Union (NVJ) agrees in part. He told Index on Censorship: “We have to nuance the image of this murder attempt being about press freedom only. Nevertheless, for his colleagues, this is an attack on one of them, and it creates a chilling climate.”
This climate has become colder in the last couple of years. Research by the NVJ has shown that more journalists in the Netherlands are getting targeted verbally or physically for their work. National broadcaster NOS last year decided not to use vans with its logo any more because it is increasingly triggering agression.
On Twitter, Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders recently called journalists ‘scum’.
Bruning said: “Criminals aren’t triggered by that of course, but this all complicates the role of journalists in society. There have been threats against journalists, and now one such threat was put into practice.”
This is also what Bruning discussed with the authorities this week during a meeting with Justice Minister Ferd Grapperhaus.
He said: “It’s positive that two suspects have been arrested. The authorities do take this seriously so I don’t think we can draw a parallel with murders of journalists elesewhere in Europe.”
Bruning was referring to the murders of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta in 2017 and Ján Kuciak in Slovakia in 2018, which laid bare corruption within the state.
Nevertheless, Bruning sees a development to which he drew Grapperhaus’s attention. He said: “Before, criminals killed each other, then they murdered a lawyer, now an attempted murder of a journalist for, most likely, his role in a trial. Who knows, maybe the next target is a journalist who only reports about crime. It’s a slippery slope.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
8 Jul 2021 | Media Freedom, News and features, Slovenia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Prime minister of Slovenia Janez Janša
As Slovenia takes over the presidency of the council of the European Union, some are questioning the country’s commitment to one of the bloc’s key principles, that of the freedom of the press.
A new report by Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a coalition of non-governmental organisations that tracks press freedom in EU Member States, says Slovenia “is no longer a relative safe haven for free media” and that prime minister Janez Janša and the ruling Slovenia Democratic Party (SDS) are “undermining critical journalism, reaching for control of public service media and reshaping the media landscape to boost SDS propaganda channels while pressuring mainstream media”.
The report reveals that journalists in the country are facing rising threats of violence and women journalists in particular are facing misogynistic and sexist insults that have been legitimised by the government’s actions.
Janša, for example, has openly questioned the legitimacy of the Slovenian Press Agency (STA), which covers events in the country, and launched a vicious and completely unfounded attack on Bojan Veselinovic, its director, accusing him of murder.
Janša posted a tweet, a familiar tactic employed by the prime minister to put pressure on opposition voices online, which said: “Amazing for the EU in the 21st century that a collaborator in the murder of a journalist is still leading the STA and therefore cashes in 8,500 euros per month, more than the president of the republic.”
The allegations are unsubstantiated, but the STA is one of many opposition voices that has faced attacks this way.
Meanwhile, investigative journalist Blaž Zgaga, who questioned the government’s Covid-19 response in April, has received multiple death threats.
Slovenia’s 2006 media law is viewed as outdated and offers journalists little protections against smears and political interference.
It is clear there is a combination of the government attempting to change the media narrative, as well as defunding critical voices. It means journalists in the country are facing increasingly difficult circumstances.
The STA had its state funding revoked and will not receive it again unless it submits to direct financial oversight from the government’s communications office (though Slovenian media have since reported that funds are to be given). The move would essentially put the agency under the direct control of government communications.
It is indicative of a strategic ploy by the government to remove state funding from opposition voices, but reward its cheerleaders. The report says that “propaganda outlets parroting the party line are rewarded with lucrative advertising contracts from state institutions and companies”, for example.
Janša’s schemes have been likened to the strategy implemented by Hungarian autocrat prime minister Viktor Orbán, who has faced heavy criticism for his record on free speech, as has the government in Poland. Hungary and Poland are known to be two of the most concerning cases regarding free expression in Europe.
Ties between Janša and Orbán are known to be close, as Anuška Delić, journalist and founder of Oštro, a centre for investigative journalism, wrote in the winter 2020 edition of Index on Censorship magazine.
Motivation for Orbán’s interference in Slovenia is obvious, as he looks for supporting voices in a Europe when there is concern over his actions.
Hungarian funds, with ties to Orbán and his Fidesz party, are being funnelled into pro-SDS media outlets, which, in a country where media revenue is declining and funds are desperately sought, should be of great concern.
The outlook is not entirely bleak, the report said.
“Despite these pressures, the Slovenian independent media sector has proven to be resilient and has continued to display high-quality watchdog journalism during the pandemic. Importantly, support and solidarity between civil society, journalists’ associations and newsrooms has been strong, giving hope for the future of the media landscape in Slovenia.”
Yet not everyone is convinced.
Delić has welcomed the report’s findings, but questioned the notion that media freedom in Slovenia is not as threatened as elsewhere, and said that it will not take much for Slovenia to become the next Poland or Hungary.
“We have just witnessed a new case of meddling where the prime minister asked Val202, a public radio station, on Twitter whether it was true that they played a current protest song on Independence Day,” said Delić, who was consulted by the authors of the report. “On that day one of the speakers at the official celebration was Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán whose government’s malign influence in Slovenia is clearly portrayed throughout the report.”
As Slovenia takes on the Council presidency, the report’s authors have called on the country’s government to stop the defunding of journalism, amend current media legislation and publicly condemn threats against reporters.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
5 Jul 2021 | Belarus, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Andrei Aliaksandrau
Human rights organisations will today urge UN Human Rights Council Member States to maintain explicit calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Belarusian journalist and human rights defender Andrei Aliaksandrau, who is now facing up to 15 years in prison on baseless charges of “treason to the state”.
Aliaksandrau has long been a defender of freedom of expression in Belarus and beyond, having previously held positions at Index on Censorship and ARTICLE 19, among other media and free speech organisations. He was detained on 12 January 2021, along with his partner, Irina Zlobina and has remained in detention since then.
The charges against Aliaksandrau and Zlobina stem from allegations that they paid the fines of journalists and protesters whom authorities detained during last year’s pro-democracy protests, part of a concerning trend by Belarusian authorities to use the imposition of new legislation to severely limit freedoms of assembly, association, and expression. To date, only Aliaksandrau has been charged with treason.
“The regime has begun to impose tougher charges on those in pre-trial detention to further suppress dissent,” ARTICLE 19 will tell the UN Human Rights Council today. “Andrei Aliaksandrau, a journalist who has been behind bars since January, has recently seen his charges related to public order escalate to more severe charges of high treason under Article 356 of the Belarus Criminal Code.”
“[W]e are gravely concerned for journalist and media manager Andrei Aliaksandrau,” Human Rights House Foundation will tell the UN Human Rights Council. “We call for his immediate release and exoneration.”
The calls from international civil society are part of an Interactive Dialogue at the HRC with the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Anaïs Marin. This formal agenda item follows submission of the Special Rapporteur’s regular reporting to the Council. In her report, the Special Rapporteur notes that “several human rights defenders and activists are currently imprisoned for having provided, through their organizations, charity support to persons detained during the post-electoral crackdown in the form of legal assistance or solidarity funds to pay for fines.”
The Special Rapporteur has reported regularly to the Council since the mandate was created in 2012 in response to “the existence of a pattern of serious violations of human rights […] that is of a systemic nature.” The arrest and detention of Aliaksandrau is another example of this pattern and follows the death on 21 May 2021 of political prisoner Vitold Ashurak while incarcerated by the authorities for doing legitimate human rights work.
For more information please contact:
Jessica Ni Mhainin, Policy and Campaigns Manager, Index on Censorship: [email protected]
Dave Elseroad, Head of Advocacy, Human Rights House Foundation: [email protected], +41 78 344 36 18
Joanna Szymanska, Senior Programme Officer for Europe and Central Asia, ARTICLE 19: [email protected] [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
