25 Nov 13 | News and features
The Supreme Economic Court of Belarus has upheld a decision by the Ministry of Information to cancel the licence of the Lohvinau Publishing House.
The company, owned by Ihar Lohvinau is well-known for publishing independent Belarusian literature and promoting national culture.
In September 2013 the Ministry of Information decided to withdraw its publishing license “for gross violations of the licensing legislation.”
The reason for the decision was Lohvinau’s publication of the Belarus Press Photo 2011 album, which was found to contain “extremist material” by a district court in Ashmiany in April 2013.
“It is quite obvious that the decision is unfair and we are going to seek justice. The Ministry of Information didn’t provide us with answers to our questions in the court room. We are going to appeal against the decision,” said Ihar Lohvinau after the hearings on 18 November 2013.
“The Ministry of Information interprets the licensing law too broadly; the licensing regulations in Belarus contain no reference to any ‘extremist materials’. Besides, the photo album in question was published long before it was considered ‘extremist’, it was sold freely in book shops, and the publisher bares no responsibility for the content of it or any later court decisions,” says Andrei Bastunets, a media lawyer and a Vice Chairman of the Belarusian Association of Journalists.
Belarusian law does not contain a clear definition of extremism, thus allowing arbitrary implementation of anti-extremist legislation. It has been used to silence critical voices and independent media in the country in the past.
As well as pictures of cute animals, the album, printed to accompany an exhibition of the best of press photography, featured images of bleeding protesters taken during a crackdown on an anti-government demonstration in Minsk after the presidential election of 2011.
05 Dec 12 | South Africa
US pop superstar Lady Gaga’s first sojourn to South Africa has raised the hackles of newspaper editors and religious fundamentalists alike.
Local organisers Big Concerts informed the press that, while journalists would be admitted, no press photographers would be allowed at the Johannesburg and Cape Town concerts on 29 November and 3 December. The usual practice is that press photographers take photos during the first three songs, which are then splashed across newspaper pages the next morning.
Announcing a retaliatory blackout on Gaga’s concerts, Alastair Ottor, online editor for Independent Newspapers, described it as:
a growing trend toward individuals and organisations imposing these kinds of restrictions on news media. Sporting bodies in particular have started imposing extreme restrictions on news media because of financial interests and this very often extends beyond what we are allowed to cover to how we are allowed to cover it. As the news industry evolves into a new era, placing restrictions on the use of multimedia, or our own photographs, for example, is not something that we as the media should agree to.
Big Concerts, in a typically obtuse response, pleaded ignorance about the reasons for the ban: “This is just how Live Nation (the global concert organisers) does it. They allow journalists and send (publicity) photos out afterwards,” local newspaper Beeld was told.
The South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) released a statement decrying the decision “as a form of press censorship fundamentally in conflict with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of media in South Africa”.
Sanef, which represents editors and senior journalists, argued that reporters and photographers are “independent observers” whose coverage the public will only trust if they are not interfered with. “While it is clear that the Lady Gaga tour is just another commercial venture, recent controversy in South Africa regarding a number of religious and other organisations which have protested vigorously against even her very presence in the country, makes her visit a matter of real public interest, and not just ‘of interest’ to her fans.”
Sanef added:
Lady Gaga’s freedom to visit South Africa and to perform regardless of any offence she may cause to those opposed to her shows is in fact protected by the freedom of speech provisions in our constitution.
The organisation expressed concern about “a growing trend by commercial event organisers to try to impose censorship or restrictions on the media”.
However, Sanef omitted to mention that the South African press includes multinational companies with a commercial interest in the ownership and distribution of photos.
Gaga has recently been subjected to international press attention exposing her so-called “weight gain”, which would explain why she would want to control the kinds of images that the media elect to distribute of her.
Gaga’s Cape Town concert featured a performance espousing a feminist objection to the control of women’s bodies, as she was wheeled onto the stage hanging among make-believe animal carcases, shouting: “Do you think I am meat? Meat is precisely what we treat women as.”
Independent Newspapers decided to boycott the concerts by not publishing reviews, even though Gaga attracted some 65,000 people in Johannesburg and 40,000 in Cape Town.
But Mail and Guardian online editor Chris Roper ridiculed that stance: “It’s true! Gaga is worse than a Satanist! She’s also an enemy of democracy who spits on our Constitution, and is possibly the worst threat our fledgling country has faced… Seriously, guys? Because Gaga doesn’t want news photographers to take upskirt shots of her meat dress and no veg, it’s a threat to our Constitution?”
Roper pointed out a similarity between Sanef and fundamentalist Christians who started a Facebook page called South Africa: No to Lady Gaga and Satanists. Both, Roper says, represent “outmoded belief systems reacting with antagonism towards the inevitability of the new world. Sanef still seems to believe that it matters a damn to Gaga whether traditional media covers her concerts, and Christians seem to believe that they can stem the tide of rational secularisation.”
The South African Council of Churches, an umbrella body once known for its anti-apartheid resistance, held a small protest at the offices of the government arts and culture department in Pretoria, demanding that Gaga be denied entry into South Africa. A handful of people also protested in Cape Town, insisting that the “bride of Satan” will bring a curse upon South Africa.
21 Dec 11 | Uncategorized
Following criticism over the removal of Palestinian artist Larissa Sansour from the short list of the Lacoste Elysee prize, Lacoste announced today their decision to cancel participation and support to the Elysée Prize on the account of the situation, and in order to “avoid any misunderstanding.”
The Musée de l’Elysée also announced today that they have decided to suspend the competition, based on “the private partner’s wish to exclude Larissa Sansour.” They also added that they “reaffirm” their support for Sansour, for “the artistic quality of her work and her dedication.”
The museum said that their decision reaffirms “commitment” to their “fundamental values,” and said that the decision to suspend the prize is in line with their history of defending “artists, their work, freedom of the arts and of speech.”
While the Musée de l’Elysée is placing responsibility on the shoulders of Lacoste, the fashion brand said that both Lacoste and the Musée de l’Elysée “felt that the work at hand did not belong in the theme of joie de vivre (happiness).” Lacoste also added that the decision was only made known to Sansour after making an agreement with the museum.
Lacoste said that Sansour’s work did not fit the criteria for the prize, but the museum said that nominees “had carte blanche to interpret the theme in which ever way they favoured, in a direct or indirect manner, with authenticity or irony, based upon their existing or as an entirely new creation.”
While both statements confirmed the approval of Sansour from the beginning, the objection to her work remains unclear. Lacoste denies implications that she was excluded “on political grounds,” but that it was merely a prize to “promote young photographers and provide them with an opportunity to increase their visibility.”
While both organisations claim to have suspended the competition, it is unclear as to whether or not this was a joint decision.
10 Aug 10 | Index Index, minipost, News and features
Southampton FC has declared that it will retain its ban on all non-official photographers, despite widespread condemnation. The original company sourced to provide photographs for the media, The Digital South, has since refused to work with the League One Club, declaring that they felt the ban was a bad idea. Southampton have nonetheless continued with the ban and will now use its own team of photographers to provide coverage of all home games this season.
