25 Jan 2012 | Europe and Central Asia, Index Index, minipost
Igor Vinyavsky, editor of the Almaty-based independent weekly Vzglyad, was detained on Monday evening in an ongoing crackdown by Kazakhstan‘s National Security Committee (KNB) on critical media and opposition activists. Two groups of KNB agents simultaneously raided Vinyavsky’s apartment and Vzglyad’s offices, confiscating all reporting equipment. Vinyavsky was detained following the newsroom raid. The crackdown has also involved a raid on independent broadcaster Stan TV.
25 Jan 2012 | Middle East and North Africa
Monday 23 January will be remembered as a grim day for freedom of expression in Tunisia.
In addition to the trial of Nabil Karoui, general director of Nessma TV, accused of “violating sacred values” and “disturbing the public order” for broadcasting the film Persepolis, journalists and activists standing in solidarity with the TV station were physically and verbally abused by ultraconservative Islamists.
Zied Krichan, a journalist and and blogger Liliah Weslati were among the victims of such assaults.
Krichan was followed as he walked outside the court where the trial was taking place, insulted, and pushed by protesters. When his colleague Hamadi Redissi tried to defend him, he too was physically assaulted.
Krichan is the editor-in chief of the daily Le Maghreb, which describes itself as a newspaper “against all threats to the modern achievements of Tunisia”. The front-page of its 218th issue, published on 22 January included a photo of Karoui, with the headline “the wrong trial.”
Krichen said he lodged a complaint against those who assaulted him. In an interview with Le Maghreb, he expressed his “astonishment” at the passiveness of the Interior Ministry. ”The slogans that were raised, were raised against me as a journalist; the media is the target of these groups”, he said.
Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali condemned the “violation of the physical integrity of Mr. Krichen”, saying that an investigation will be opened, and that the attacker will be punished.
Liliah Weslati, who was also verbally and physically abused while she was protesting outside the court, described the Prime Minister’s intervention as “excellent”, but said she is looking forward to “concrete acts”.
“I don’t like Nessma TV, and I don’t watch it, but I protested for freedom of speech,” she told Index on Censorship.
Weslati held a banner that read “Even in the Quran Satan had the right to talk”. On two occasions, anti-Nessma protesters forcibly took away the banner from her. Other protesters told her to “go back home”. She was even threatened with death. Aymen Amri, Weslati’s colleague, was also attacked as he attempted to videotape the way she was mistreated. He was pushed over, and the camera fell to the ground.
Weslati told Index:
There is a campaign against me on Facebook (…) they are calling me the ‘Devil’s friend’ (…) once I arrived home I changed the jacket I was wearing outside the court, I was afraid they would recognise me.
With the fall of the former ruler Zeine El Abdine Ben Ali, journalists and activists started to breathe. The numbers of police assaults on journalists fell and activists have enjoyed rights and freedoms they never had before: the right to assemble, protest and to criticise.
This kind of brutality, in the name of the religion endangers these new freedoms. In order to avoid establishing a pattern of abuse, in which such assaults are repeated over and over, the Tunisian authorities and the judiciary must act now to bring such extremists to justice.
25 Jan 2012 | Asia and Pacific, Index Index, minipost
New restrictions are being imposed on the Burmese media, despite earlier calls from the country’s censor chief to ease restrictions. Ahead of April’s by-elections, Tint Swe, director of the Burmese Press Scrutiny and Registration Division, warned newspaper editors that “action will be taken” against publications which do not adhere to guidelines from the censorship board. In October, Swe made calls for greater media freedom and the abolition of censorship.
24 Jan 2012 | Uncategorized
This article was originally published in The Times
Sometimes the most reasonable-looking laws can cause the most damage. Let’s hope members of the Leveson inquiry into media ethics are familiar with this awkward fact. In France, stringent privacy laws have prevented investigation into the dodgy financial dealings of leading public figures. In Hungary, a media law has in a matter of months emasculated a free press, leading to radio stations being closed down and reporters and editors fired. That law includes many items on the wish lists of several witnesses to the inquiry, such as press regulation, licensing and fines.
In the UK journalists pride themselves on the irreverence and bolshiness of their newspapers. Yet despite the outrageous behaviour that led to the phone-hacking scandal, the real problem with Britain’s press is that it is too weak. It finds out far too little. If the job of journalism is to put into the public domain inconvenient truths that the rich and powerful would like to hide, then the performance of Britain’s press is nothing to be proud of. Part of this is economic (investigations are costly); laziness is another factor.
By far the biggest reason, however, is the number of laws that impede proper scrutiny. The most pernicious area is our defamation culture. Index on Censorship, together with its partners, has been leading the campaign to reform England’s libel laws. A defamation Bill has been drafted and should be included in the Queen’s Speech in May, as ministers have promised. Libel reform was, after all, part of the coalition agreement.
London has for years been a rich men’s playground, with oligarchs, oil barons and autocrats using our plaintiff-friendly courts to bully bloggers, newspapers and civil society groups. It was bad enough when the creators of South Park satirised our legal system (with Tom Cruise threatening: “I’m going to sue you — in England!”), but when President Obama signed into law the Speech Act, designed to protect Americans from English libel rulings, we went from farce to tragedy. MP’s rightly described that action as a “national humiliation” for the UK.
Until recently, libel reform appeared on course; broad consensus has been achieved on the main points of a final Bill. Yet some are now calling for delay, for defamation to be thrown into the post-Leveson soup. This would be folly. As he proceeds in his vital task of improving the standards of British journalism, Lord Justice Leveson should make clear that his inquiry will not be used as a device to delay implementation of a law that goes to the heart of democracy and the public’s right to know.
John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship
