Clashes in Kiev between police and protesters on 19 January (Image: Julia Kochetova/Demotix)
At least 26 journalists were injured during the clashes between police and protesters in Kiev on 19 and 20 January.
According to the Institute for Mass Information (IMI), most of the reporters were wounded by stun grenades or rubber bullets used by the police while dispersing a rally in central Kiev, in protest at the new repressive legislation adopted in Ukraine last week.
IMI’s reports says the riot police on several occasions particularly targeted journalists, despite them having “Press” signs on their equipment and clothes. For instance, police officers shook a bus, while several journalists were filming the events from its roof, leading to several reporters falling off. The police attacked one of them, Denis Savchenko, a cameraman of 5 Channel. They tore his “press” badge of him and detained him briefly. The reporter now at home, with his leg broken.
Anatoly Lazarenko, a reporter of Spilno.tv online television, was shot in the hand while broadcasting live from the scene of the clashes. The reporter says the police aimed specifically at him to prevent him from reporting.
The legislation, adopted in Ukraine on 16 January 2014, has already been dubbed “the Dictatorship Law” by the country’s civil society. According to legal analysis done by experts of the Centre for Civil Liberties and Euromaidan SOS initiative, the law violates legislative procedures, runs counter to international treaties and domestic legislation and seriously restrict rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens.
The new law particularly targets free speech. It criminalises defamation, provides for liability for “distribution of extremist materials” and introduces a requirement for the registration of online media. It is now also forbidden to collect and disseminate information concerning law enforcement officers and judges.
The repressive law was officially signed by the President Yanukovich on 17 January, and has already come into force.
The full text of the independent legal analysis of the human rights related bills, adopted in Ukraine, is available here.
Grafitti of Tommie Smith, John Carlos and Peter Norman showing solidarity for the civil rights movement at the Mexico City Olympics in 1968 (Image: Newtown graffiti/Wikimedia Commons)
”We will give the background of the Rule 50, explaining the interpretation of the Rule 50 to make the athletes aware and to assure them that the athletes will be protected,” said IOC President Thomas Bach in an interview earlier this week. Rule 50 stipulates that ”No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” Failure to comply could, at worst, mean expulsion for the athlete in question.
Political expression is certainly a hot topic at Sochi 2014. The games continue to be marred by widespread, international criticism of Russia’s human — and particularly LGBT– rights record. The outrage has especially been directed at the country’s recently implemented, draconian anti-gay law. Put place to “protect children”, it bans “gay propaganda”. This vague terminology could technically include anything from a ten meter rainbow flag to a tiny rainbow pin, and there have already been arrests under the new legislation.
The confusion continued as the world wondered how this might impact LGBT athletes and spectators, or those wishing to show solidarity with them. Russian authorities have for instance warned of possible fines for visitors displaying “gay propaganda”. Could this put the Germans, with their colourful official gear, in the firing line? (Disclaimer: team Germany has denied that the outfits were designed as a protest.)
On top of this, the IOC also recently announced that there will be designated “protest zones” in Sochi, for “people who want to express their opinion or want to demonstrate for or against something,” according to Bach. Where these would be located, or exactly how they would work, was not explained.
But while the legal situation in Russia adds another level of uncertainty and confusion regarding free, political expression for athletes, rule 50 has banned it for years. And for years, athletes have taken a stand anyway.
By far the most famous example came during the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City — American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos, on the podium, black gloved fists raised in solidarity with the ongoing American civil rights movement. The third man on the podium, Australian Peter Norman, showed his support by wearing a badge for the Olympic Project for Human Rights. All three men faced criticism at the time, but the image today stands out as one of the most iconic and powerful pieces of Olympic history.
However, the history of Olympians and political protest goes further back than that. An early example is the refusal of American shotputter Ralph Rose to dip the flag to King Edward VII at the 1908 games in London. It us unknown exactly why he did it, but one theory is that it was an act of solidarity for Irish athletes who had to compete under the British flag, as Rose and others on his team were of Irish descent.
The Cold War years unsurprisingly proved to be a popular time for athletes to put their political views across. When China withdrew from the 1960 Olympics in protest at Taiwan, then recognised by the west as the legitimate China, taking part. The IOC then asked Taiwan not to march under the name ‘Republic of China’. While considering boycotting the games, the Taiwanese delegation instead decided to march into the opening ceremony with a sign reading “under protest”.
But there are also more recent examples. At Athens 2004, Iranian flyweight judo champion Arash Miresmaeili reportedly ate his way out of his weight category the day before he was set to fight Israeli Ehud Vaks. “Although I have trained for months and was in good shape, I refused to fight my Israeli opponent to sympathise with the suffering of the people of Palestine” he said. A member of the South Korean football team which beat Japan to win bronze at the 2012 London Olympics, celebrated with a flag carrying a slogan supporting South Korean sovereignty over territory Japan also claims.
When the debate on political expression comes up, the argument of “where do we draw the line” often follows. If the IOC is to allow messages of solidarity with Russia’s LGBT population, should they allow, say, a Serbian athlete speak out against Kosovan independence? Or any number of similar, controversial political issues? Is it not easier to simply have a blanket band, and leave it at that?
The problem with this is, as much as the IOC and many other would like it, the Olympics, with all their inherent symbolism, simply cannot be divorced from wider society or politics. The examples above show this. With regards to Sochi in particular, the issue is pretty straightforward — gay are human rights. Some have argued we should boycott a Olympics in a country that doesn’t respect the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, or indeed the Olympic Charter. This is not happening, so the very least we can is use the Olympics to shine a light on gay rights in Russia. At its core, the Olympics are about the athletes — they are the most visible and important people there. It remains to be seen whether any of them will take a stand for gay rights, outside cordoned-off protest areas, in the slopes and on the rink, where the spotlight shines the brightest. And if they do, they should have our full support.
Journalists in the Canadian province of Alberta could see their right to free speech stifled as new legislation, aimed at suppressing the illegal striking of union members, will impose heavy fines on those who comment publically in favour of those picketing.
For members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) it has been illegal to strike since 1977. The new legislation, introduced by Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservative government, will abolish the action of arbitration, as well as freezing wages and imposing fines, both for those who take part any form of “illegal” striking and those who comment on it.
According to Bob Barnetson, the director of the Human Resources and Labour Relations programme at Athabasca University, Bill 45 would see newspaper columnists who write opinion pieces about the plight of workers, or those who merely comment “the only option they have is to strike” handed a hefty penalty for their work. Making such comment would be a violation of section 4.4 of the bill.
“So what happens to the editor or academic?” Barnetson wrote on his blog last week. “Well, s.18.1 says that if you violate s.4.4 you are guilty of an offence. Under s.18.1(d), the editor or academic would be liable for a fine of $500 a day per day of the contravention. Section 20(a) says that prosecution may occur within 1 year of the last day the offense occurred”.
David Climenhaga, a well-known labour blogger in Alberta, believes the imposed fines would stretch as far as catching-out members of the public who showed up at an “illegal” picket line or members of other unions, not subjected to the legislation, who joined a picket out of solidarity: “So, while the bill is mostly careful to restrict penalties to union members and officers, on the always dangerous question of free speech, it extends its attack to “any person” who says the wrong thing to a civil servant.”
Bill 46, which will run alongside Bill 45, will see the 21,642 members of the AUPE forced back to the bargaining table in January or accept a 0% wage increase for the next two years.
An earlier version of this article referred to Alberta as a state. It is a province.
On a Saturday afternoon in June, a group of activists walked into a bank in Manhattan, New York, and staged a peaceful protest performance. The Church of Stop Shopping, led by Reverend Billy, were protesting at JP Chase Morgan and other banks’ investment in fossil fuel projects, which they say is unethical in the face of climate change.
Bill Talen, 63, the man behind Reverend Bill and the Church of Stop Shopping, has been staging this kind of action for a while. I interviewed him for New Humanist magazine in 2004, after a protest at a Starbuck’s in Camden, North London.
But now Bill and his colleague Nehemiah Luckett are facing charges of riot in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, for their JP Chase Morgan protest. The pair could end with one year in jail. For a peaceful protest. They are due to appear in court on 9 December.
It’s hard not to think of the fate of Russia’s Pussy Riot when writing about Reverend Billy. Both Pussy Riot and the Stop Shopping Choir have used similar tactics, staging peaceful performance protests right in what they would see as the belly of the beast. And both have been subjected to very harsh charges. Earlier this year, members of Pussy Riot told me they “had not planned for the extreme reaction from the authorities,” after they staged their “Punk Prayer” in Moscow’s Christ The Saviour Cathedral. Similarly, Reverend Billy, while accepting that arrest is an occupational hazard for a protester, has been surprised by the riot charge and the potential sentence. The difference is, of course, that we don’t expect this kind of thing to happen in the US.
This week I asked Billy about the protest, and his upcoming court case.
Index on Censorship: Can you tell us what happened at JP Morgan Chase?
Reverend Billy: We interrupted the very wealthy of upper Manhattan in their “wealth management” sessions. The sea of white people at walnut desks looked up to confront large flaming frogs leaping on their desks, handing out information about the impact of their fossil fuel investments. An Elvis impersonator narrated the event while the “Golden Toads” – an animal forced into extinction 30 years ago by climate change – harmonised and hopped. Under the toad costumes was the singing group called “The Stop Shopping Choir”.
IoC:What were you protesting about?
RB: Banks and big hedge funds are busy investing in fossil fuel projects around the world, making high profits, at precisely the point that the natural scientists – as in the 5th IPCC report from the United Nations – are telling us that all we can do to save ourselves and the planet as we recognize it today is to immediately stop gas, oil and coal.
IoC: Were you surprised to be arrested? Or is it just something you see as a risk of the job?
RB:Although I’ve been arrested many times, like most activists – you’re always surprised.
IoC: You’re potentially facing a year in jail. Have you ever had charges this harsh before?
RB:No – the most time I’ve served was three days in the Los Angeles County Jail. Usually I have the overnight stay.
IoC: Why do you think this has happened now, after years of activism? Just a quirk of the prosecutor? Something else?
RB: Stopping the business of the very rich is altogether different kettle of fish from our usual “nonviolent dramatic action” – which is often in parks, lobbies, between cars in traffic jams, on the Staten Island Ferry, etc.
IoC: How do you intend to fight the charge?
RB: The “Necessity Defense” – which means that if someone is drawing a gun on us to kill us, we have the right to grab them and disarms them. I have the right to commit a minor crime to prevent a great crime that no other presiding authority can prevent. No presiding authority is dealing with climate change. Governments in the West and China – are committed to their deadly gradualism, controlled by fossil cartels.
IoC: How do you think this charge squares with your first amendment rights?
RB: The First Amendment has been under systematic attack in New York City for 20 years, under the leadership of Rudolf Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg, their police and courts. The right to express in public space is besieged by permits and police, and overwhelmed by corporate expression – advertising in myriad forms, from the glowing gadget in the hand to the 80 foot tall Kate Moss looking at me like we just made love. We must reclaim freedom of expression, and we believe that this resurrection of extinct Golden Toads is the right drama. Earthalujah!
