Index on Censorship has submitted our concerns about the UK government’s proposed Communications Data Bill (widely known as the “snoopers charter”). We have several concerns about the government’s proposals, as surveillance and retention of data can undoubtedly have an effect on free expression. I’ll reproduce the introduction to our submission, which outlines our concerns, here, and you can read the full submission below.
The Communications Data Bill as currently drafted would directly undermine both the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression by making surveillance and storage of UK citizens’ communications data the norm. These rights are enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UNDR explicitly states that: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”.
Collection and filtering of communications data across the whole British population would not only represent an unacceptable breach of privacy but would also undermine freedom of expression. Index on Censorship – as one of the world’s leading freedom of expression organisations – has monitored censorship and surveillance around the world for forty years. The goals of widespread monitoring, information-collection and storage, and surveillance of a whole population are aims that are normally found only in authoritarian and totalitarian states, such as Iran and China, not in democracies who are bound, through their accession to the human rights conventions mentioned above, and through their commitments to democracy and freedom, only to limit free expression where it is necessary on clear grounds of national security and public order and to impose any limits in a proportionate and limited manner.
Population-wide collection and filtering of communications data is neither necessary nor proportionate. Monitoring and surveillance of this kind impacts directly and in a chilling manner on freedom of expression, inhibiting and restricting individuals in how they receive, share and impart information and encouraging self-censorship. No other democracy has gone as far as the government proposes in this bill that the UK should go. As well as representing a major undermining of privacy and freedom of expression in the UK, this bill, if it became law, would be a direct encouragement and justification for authoritarian regimes to monitor in detail their entire populations online as well as off. It would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the UK to challenge these regimes on their censorship and surveillance of their populations. It is also remarkable that, in a memorandum attached to the draft bill on the compatibility of the bill with the European Convention on Human Rights, the government sees fit to focus only on the right to privacy and makes no mention of the potentially chilling and damaging impacts of the bill on freedom of expression.
The declared purpose of this bill is to tackle crime and to ensure national security. This type of in-depth monitoring of the entire population has at no point before been used or introduced as an appropriate crime-prevention or security-promoting tool in the UK. It would represent a reversal of the presumption of innocence and an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of the British population.
Furthermore, the fact that new technology makes such population-wide data collection, filtering and monitoring possible is not a justification for using the technology in that manner. Such data collection would represent a major step-change in the amount of information available on individual citizens and is not, as has been claimed, simply a step to ensure information already available offline is also available from online sources. The distinction between ‘subscriber’, ‘use’ and ‘traffic’ data and data content is also a misleading one. The range of data that would be collected as ‘communications data’ would enable a detailed picture of individual’s habits, activities, interests, and opinions to be built up going well beyond any population-wide accumulation of data that has happened until now in the UK.
If you want to add your voice, you can sign 38 Degrees petition here;
Have you seen Prince Harry’s crown jewels!!??!! The royal family’s finest asset!
The jokes write themselves, don’t they? Feel free to add your own in the comments.
But the nude Las Vegas party adventures of the third in line to the British throne — or, more accurately, the pictures of the nude Las Vegas party adventures of the third in line to the British throne — throw up some serious questions.
No British newspaper has published the nude pictures taken inside a private hotel suite, though most published other pictures, taken outside, of the young prince (cue newspaper-speak) “cavorting” with other “revellers”, including Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte.
The Sun, bizarrely, got staff, including an intern, to pose in replica shots.
Newspapers were informed by the PCC that St James’s Palace had issued a semi-threatening legal letter from law firm Harbottle and Lewis, claiming that publication of the photographs would be in contravention of article 3 of the PCC code (which covers privacy), and that the palace “reserved its rights” should publication go ahead.
There’s been debate since about whether or not publication of the pictures would be in the public interest. On the one hand, Harry was on private time, and not in a public place, when the nude photos were taken. What has the world come to when young, healthy soldier on leave can’t get naked and play billiards without his pictures being published everywhere!
But then, Harry is, by very definition, through the weirdness of monarchy, a public figure. The pictures are certainly of interest to the public, if not in the public interest. And public knowledge of them doesn’t seem to have dented the prince’s ever-rising popularity. The general reaction has been along the lines of “of course he’s hanging out naked in a Vegas hotel suite! He’s Prince Harry and that’s what he does, the little scamp.”
Being honest, I’m not sure where I stand on this. But here’s what I find interesting. I have absolutely no doubt that in a pre-Leveson world, these pictures would have been published by the majority of newspapers. Are they now being sensible and respectful, or timid and fearful of the Lord Justice’s wrath?
What’s more, when the pictures are all over the web (the Daily Mail has helpfully produced a list of sites where you can view the royal birthday suit), how meaningful are Harbottle and Lewis’s letter, the PCC’s warning*notification, and the various editors’ decisions not to run the pictures?
Update: Jonathan Collett of the Press Complaints Commission has been in touch about the reference to “the PCC’s warning” in this post. He says:
It’s not the case that we have issued a warning. The Palace have themselves confirmed that they contacted the PCC and used our pre-publication services to pass on their concerns about the potential publication of the photographs to Editors. They used the same system that is available to members of the public, which the PCC has developed to allow people at the heart of a news story to make editors aware of their concerns before publication. The decision on whether to proceed with publication rests with Editors, who clearly will be mindful of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The PCC has not received a formal complaint about the photographs and the Commission has not made any ruling on the issue.
It certainly wasn’t my intention to suggest that the Commission itself had “issued a warning”, merely that it had warned in the “alerted” sense, that Harbottle & Lewis had sent the letter. But that could have been made clearer, and we’re happy to publish Mr Collett’s explanation.
Padraig Reidy is Index on Censorship’s news editor
An 11-year-old girl with Down’s Syndrome was last week arrested in Pakistan, after an angry mob demanded that the girl be punished for allegedly desecrating the Qur’an — the Islamic holy book. The young girl is a resident of a Christian neighbourhood on the outskirts of Islamabad, from where over 600 citizens have now fled after calls for her arrest were accompanied by threats to burn Christian homes in the area. This isn’t the first blasphemy case we’ve seen come out of Pakistan — earlier this year, charges were brought against Facebook for hosting “blasphemous content”. In September 2011, a young Christian school girl was expelled for misspelling a word on an exam question tied to a poem revering the Prophet Muhammad.
Religious sensitivities have mostly been responsible for silence from Pakistani politicians on the controversial laws — slammed internationally for their usage against religious minorities in the country. Politicians speaking out against the laws have faced hardship, and even in some cases — death. In January this year, governor of the state of Punjab Salman Taseer was slain after criticising the law, and Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti was murdered last year after speaking out against the country’s blasphemy laws, under which 1,000 cases have been lodged against individuals for allegedly desecrating the Qur’an since 1998.
Of course, Pakistan is not alone in upholding vague blasphemy laws that make it easy to clamp down on free speech in the name of protecting religion. Here are some ridiculous blasphemy cases from around the world this year.
RUSSIA — PUSSY RIOT
Three members of feminist punk group Pussy Riot were this month sentenced to two years in prison after being charged with “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” for a 40-second performance staged in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Church. Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina and Ekaterina Samutsevic were arrested in March for their “punk prayer” — which invoked the Virgin Mary to cast out Russian President Vladimir Putin. The case has garnered international outrage, as local activists believe that the charges brought against the women are actually politically motivated.
TUNISIA — PERSEPOLIS
In post-revolution Tunisia, the General Director of a TV station that aired a film depicting God as an old bearded man, was prosecuted and fined for “violating sacred values”. Nabil Karoui’s station, Nessma TV, aired the animated film Persepolis, based on Iranian artist Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel by the same name.
And concerns about freedom of expression in Tunisia only seem to grow, as its ruling Islamist party moved to outlaw blasphemy in a bill filed on 1 August. If passed, “cursing, insulting, mocking, undermining, and desecrating” religious symbols from the three Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) could lead to two years in jail, as well as a hefty fine of 2000 TND (£794). While the ruling Ennadha Party claims to want to protect free speech, blasphemy is treated differently — in the name of protecting an “Arab Muslim identity”.
INDIA — SANAL EDAMARUKU
Indian skeptic Sanal Edamaruku, has built a career out of challenging religious superstitions and mystics. Edamaruku now faces blasphemy charges for “deliberately hurting religious feelings” after pointing out that the “miracle” of “holy water” dripping from a crucifix in a Mumbai-based Catholic church was actually the result of a leaky pipe rather than divine intervention. He potentially faces jail time, and is currently remaining outside of the country in order to avoid arrest.
EGYPT — NAGUIB SAWIRIS & ADEL IMAM
Earlier this year, beloved Egyptian comic Adel Imam was sentenced to three months in jail for “insulting Islam” in films he made in the early 1990s. A Cairo court eventually dropped the charges, which were brought against the comic by Islamist lawyer Asran Mansour, for allegedly ridiculing political and religious figures. Also this year, Islamists accused Coptic businessman Naguib Sawiris of “blasphemy and insulting Islam” after he posted a picture of a veiled Minnie and bearded Mickey Mouse on the social networking site Twitter. The charges were eventually dismissed. Both of these case sparked outrage and fears that a clampdown on free expression in the country might take place, as the newly elected President Mohamed Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
POLAND — POP STAR DODA Well-known Polish pop star Doda was fined at the start of the year for comments she made in a 2009 interview, where she said that she had difficulty believing in the Bible, as it “was written by someone drunk on wine and smoking some herbs”. Doda, who launched her career with a solo album entitled Diamond Bitch, was fined 5,000 zlotys by Polish authorities for her comments — deemed to be offensive in the deeply Roman Catholic country.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship. She tweets from @missyasin
An 11-year-old girl with Down’s Syndrome was last week arrested in Pakistan, after an angry mob demanded that the girl be punished for allegedly desecrating the Qur’an — the Islamic holy book. The young girl is a resident of a Christian neighbourhood on the outskirts of Islamabad, from where over 600 citizens have now fled after calls for her arrest were accompanied by threats to burn Christian homes in the area. This isn’t the first blasphemy case we’ve seen come out of Pakistan — earlier this year, charges were brought against Facebook for hosting “blasphemous content”. In September 2011, a young Christian school girl was expelled for misspelling a word on an exam question tied to a poem revering the prophet Muhammad.
