1 May 2014 | News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture, United Kingdom, Young Writers / Artists Programme
Staff at Newtownabbey’s Theatre on the Mill return promotional posters to hoardings after the local council overturned a ban on the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s The Bible (Abridged). Image Conor Macauley/Twitter
Do we have the right to not be offended?
Newtownabbey council said “yes” when they cancelled what they labelled a blasphemous play, The Bible: The Complete Word of God (Abridged), due to be performed by the Reduced Shakespeare Company (RSC) earlier this year. Members of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a political party with roots in the Free Presbyterian Church, called for the show to be axed fearing it would offend and mock Christian beliefs.
The story went global as accusations of censorship were hurled at the Northern Irish council. Twitter exploded with satirical cartoons of the DUP, petitions against the ban and the hashtag #thoushaltnotlaugh. Days later, the decision was reversed.
Some members of the public agreed with the move to cancel The Bible, but they represented a minority. Many argued that the DUP’s original decision amounted to censorship and asked what qualified them to act as censor. Fear of a public backlash from offended parties might motivate councils and theatres to make these kinds of decisions, but who has the right to judge who is and who isn’t entitled to free speech?
Under threat of a ban, The RSC, however, didn’t feel that their free speech had been limited; the real victims were the people of Newtownabbey who had their freedom of choice taken away from them. In a post show talk after the opening night, the company told the audience, ‘You were excited because you were allowed to go and see the show you wanted to see.’ If people felt the show would offend them, they had the choice to stay at home or see the show and make their own judgement. The DUP’s original decision would have eliminated this choice and sent a message that the public are unable to think for themselves.
In the RSC’s podcast, Austin Tichenor described how the first two performances of the show, ‘were cancelled over complaints about the production by people who had never seen it or read it.’ The DUP and some members of the Christian community jumped to the conclusion that The Bible was poking fun at Christianity. As it so happens, the RSC’s production The Bible is not intended to cause offence or mock Christianity, but is a celebration of the religious text. Tichenor tweeted, “Our script celebrates the Bible. I disagree with how many churches interpret it, but have never once called for them to be censored” and later added, “Honestly, NI folks are going to finally see BIBLE (abridged) and go, ‘THIS is what all the fuss was about?’’
With the knowledge that the play is a comedy about the Bible, some individuals presumed that the content must be offensive and blasphemous. Whether it is or isn’t offensive is not the point – everyone is entitled to their view, it doesn’t matter whether they’re right. It just so happens that on this occasion a fuss was made for no reason. The events in Newtownabbey just go to show how easily theatre can be suppressed and how individuals can take it upon themselves to save others from the burden of being offended.
Theatre censorship in the UK was abolished in 1968, after a history of “offensive” material being suppressed and censored. Although officially British theatre is not censored, this doesn’t stop pressure from groups and individuals when contentious issues are raised in plays, in this case a religious group. Are religious leaders too ready to appoint themselves as censors? With the case of Newtownabbey, religion and politics became one voice, distorting whether this was a political matter or a case of religious opinion.
Religions are based on sets of ideas and so mustn’t be above scrutiny. For these groups to develop, attract more members and function within society, their ideologies must be debated and discussed. The best practise perhaps is not for religious groups to suppress criticism, but to embrace and respond to it. The very nature of religion is that leaders will advise their followers how to act and lead their lives, but going so far as to ban a play crosses the line into censorship.
With the knowledge that some religious groups are ready and willing to suppress supposedly blasphemous theatre, is there a culture of self-censorship within playwrights? What of the plays that were imagined, but never existed for fear of causing offence? The events at Newtownabbey have shown a religious group attempting and failing to act as censor when the public voiced their own opinions. What this story has shown, is that whilst there may be threats to our freedom of speech, our right to reject and protest against these decisions is still very much in place and evidently extremely effective.
This article was originally posted on 1 May 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
30 Apr 2014 | Egypt, Iraq, News and features, Nigeria, Pakistan, Religion and Culture, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vietnam
In January, Index summarised the U.S. State Department’s “Countries of Particular Concern” — those that severely violate religious freedom rights within their borders. This list has remained static since 2006 and includes Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. These countries not only suppress religious expression, they systematically torture and detain people who cross political and social red lines around faith.
Today the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent watchdog panel created by Congress to review international religious freedom conditions, released its 15th annual report recommending that the State Department double its list of worst offenders to include Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vietnam and Syria.
Here’s a roundup of the systematic, ongoing and egregious religious freedom violations unfolding in each.
1. Egypt
The promise of religious freedom that came with a revised constitution and ousted Islamist president last year has yet to transpire. An increasing number of dissident Sunnis, Coptic Christians, Shiite Muslims, atheists and other religious minorities are being arrested for “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions or inciting sectarian strife” under the country’s blasphemy law. Attacks against these groups are seldom investigated. Freedom of belief is theoretically “absolute” in the new constitution approved in January, but only for Muslims, Christians and Jews. Baha’is are considered apostates, denied state identity cards and banned from engaging in public religious activities, as are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Egyptian courts sentenced 529 Islamist supporters to death in March and another 683 in April, though most of the March sentences have been commuted to life in prison. Courts also recently upheld the five-year prison sentence of writer Karam Saber, who allegedly committed blasphemy in his work.
2. Iraq
Iraq’s constitution guarantees religious freedom, but the government has largely failed to prevent religiously-motivated sectarian attacks. About two-thirds of Iraqi residents identify as Shiite and one-third as Sunni. Christians, Yezidis, Sabean-Mandaeans and other faith groups are dwindling as these minorities and atheists flee the country amid discrimination, persecution and fear. Baha’is, long considered apostates, are banned, as are followers of Wahhabism. Sunni-Shia tensions have been exacerbated recently by the crisis in neighboring Syria and extremist attacks against religious pilgrims on religious holidays. A proposed personal status law favoring Shiism is expected to deepen divisions if passed and has been heavily criticized for allowing girls to marry as young as nine.
3. Nigeria
Nigeria is roughly divided north-south between Islam and Christianity with a sprinkling of indigenous faiths throughout. Sectarian tensions along these geographic lines are further complicated by ethnic, political and economic divisions. Laws in Nigeria protect religious freedom, but rule of law is severely lacking. As a result, the government has failed to stop Islamist group Boko Haram from terrorizing and methodically slaughtering Christians and Muslim critics. An estimated 16,000 people have been killed and many houses of worship destroyed in the past 15 years as a result of violence between Christians and Muslims. The vast majority of these crimes have gone unpunished. Christians in Muslim-majority northern states regularly complain of discrimination in the spheres of education, employment, land ownership and media.
4. Pakistan
Pakistan’s record on religious freedom is dismal. Harsh anti-blasphemy laws are regularly evoked to settle personal and communal scores. Although no one has been executed for blasphemy in the past 25 years, dozens charged with the crime have fallen victim to vigilantism with impunity. Violent extremists from among Pakistan’s Taliban and Sunni Muslim majority regularly target the country’s many religious minorities, which include Shiites, Sufis, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Baha’is. Ahmadis are considered heretics and are prevented from identifying as Muslim, as the case of British Ahmadi Masud Ahmad made all too clear in recent months. Ahmadis are politically disenfranchised and Hindu marriages are not state-recognized. Laws must be consistent with Islam, the state religion, and freedom of expression is constitutionally “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam,” fostering a culture of self-censorship.
5. Tajikistan
Religious freedom has rapidly deteriorated since Tajikistan’s 2009 religion law severely curtailed free exercise. Muslims, who represent 90 percent of the population, are heavily monitored and restricted in terms of education, dress, pilgrimage participation, imam selection and sermon content. All religious groups must register with the government. Proselytizing and private religious education are forbidden, minors are banned from participating in most religious activities and Muslim women face many restrictions on communal worship. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been banned from the country since 2007 for their conscientious objection to military service, as have several other religious groups. Hundreds of unregistered mosques have been closed in recent years, and “inappropriate” religious texts are regularly confiscated.
6. Turkmenistan
The religious freedom situation in Turkmenistan is similar to that of Tajikistan but worse due to the country’s extraordinary political isolation and government repression. Turkmenistan’s constitution guarantees religious freedom, but many laws, most notably the 2003 religion law, contradict these provisions. All religious organizations must register with the government and remain subject to raids and harassment even if approved. Shiite Muslim groups, Protestant groups and Jehovah’s Witnesses have all had their registration applications denied in recent years. Private worship is forbidden and foreign travel for pilgrimages and religious education are greatly restricted. The government hires and fires clergy, censors religious texts, and fines and imprisons believers for their convictions.
7. Vietnam
Vietnam’s government uses vague national security laws to suppress religious freedom and freedom of expression as a means of maintaining its authority and control. A 2005 decree warns that “abuse” of religious freedom “to undermine the country’s peace, independence, and unity” is illegal and that religious activities must not “negatively affect the cultural traditions of the nation.” Religious diversity is high in Vietnam, with half the population claiming some form of Buddhism and the rest identifying as Catholic, Hoa Hao, Cao Dai, Protestant, Muslim or with other small faith and non-religious communities. Religious groups that register with the government are allowed to grow but are closely monitored by specialized police forces, who employ violence and intimidation to repress unregistered groups.
8. Syria
The ongoing Syrian crisis is now being fought along sectarian lines, greatly diminishing religious freedom in the country. President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, aligned with Hezbollah and Shabiha, have targeted Syria’s majority-Sunni Muslim population with religiously-divisive rhetoric and attacks. Extremist groups on the other side, including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), have targeted Christians and Alawites in their fight for an Islamic state devoid of religious tolerance or diversity. Many Syrians choose their allegiances based on their families’ faith in order to survive. It’s important to note that all human rights, not just religious freedom, are suffering in Syria and in neighboring refugee camps. In quieter times, proselytizing, conversion from Islam and some interfaith marriages are restricted, and all religious groups must officially register with the government.
This article was originally posted on April 30, 2014 at Religion News Service
30 Apr 2014 | About Index, Azerbaijan Letters, Campaigns, Statements
Minister Usubov Ramil Idris oglu
Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Avenue 7
1005 Baku
Republic of Azerbaijan
Email: [email protected]
Prosecutor General Zakir Bakir oglu Garalov
Nigar Rafibayli street 7
1001 Baku
Republic of Azerbaijan
Email: [email protected]
Mr Minister, Mr Prosecutor General,
We, the undersigned members and partners of the Human Rights House Network (HRHN) and the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders, express our deep concern over the persecution and hindrance of free movement of human rights defender Leyla Yunus and her husband Arif Yunus. We call upon you to put an end to the attacks, detention and harassment of human rights defenders and to take steps in order to foster a safe environment for human rights defenders, in line with Azerbaijan’s international obligations and commitments, including as a member of the Council of Europe.
On 28 April 2014 Leyla Yunus and her husband, the historian Arif Yunus, were prevented from leaving the country at Baku’s airport. She then was detained and interrogated by the police regarding the case of the arrested journalist Rauf Mirkadirov and questioned about the relation between the journalist and the Institute for Peace and Democracy. She was released only in the after-noon on 29 April 2014. Searches were conducted in the office of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, and continued in the private home of Leyla Yunus until the night of 29 April 2014. According to Leila Yunus, she was humiliated during the search by the officers. The official grounds on which Leyla Yunus and Arif Yunus were prevented from leaving the country and detained are unclear, as well as the grounds on which the searches are being carried out.
Leader of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, Leyla Yunus is a well-known Azerbaijani human rights defender. Her NGO is a member of the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders and has from the very start in 1995 worked on the issue to release political prisoners and to establish rule of law in Azerbaijan. Leyla Yunus has within several projects worked to establish dialogue between civil society actors in the South Caucasus. She is a Chevalier of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, as a tribute for her longstanding work promoting human rights.
We are worried that the persecution is related to her outspoken criticism in the past few days against the detention of Rauf Mirgadirov, the investigative journalist of the leading Russian-language newspaper Zerkalo (Mirror), who is now facing charges of treason for his efforts in the peace building process of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Rauf Mirkadirov participated in the numerous joint projects between the Institute for Peace and Democracy and Armenian NGOs.
Under Azerbaijan’s commitments within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation’s Misnk Group, we strongly believe that public diplomacy and cooperation between civil society in the South Caucasus contributes to efforts aiming at finding a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
As the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Nils Muižnieks stated on his Facebook page, “this is an additional example showing the extent of intimidation and repression of critical voices in Azerbaijan, a problem which I have repeatedly highlighted […] and asked the Azerbaijani authorities to address.”[1]Azerbaijan should indeed guarantee the right to freedom of expression of all human rights defenders and critical voices, in line with its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe.
Furthermore, authorities should prevent the use of unreliable evidence and unwarranted investigations against human rights defenders, as laid out in the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 22/6 of 21 March 2013.
We are extremely worried to see that human rights defenders, including journalists and bloggers, are persecuted, attacked and detained due to their work. In addition to Leyla Yunus, the Chairperson of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre (EMDS) Anar Mammadli, the Executive Director of EMDS Bashir Suleymanli and Elnur Mammadov, president of the Volunteers of International Cooperation, are facing court trials[2].
Ahead of the Chairmanship of the Council of Europe by the Republic of Azerbaijan, we call upon you to put an end to the crackdown of the civil society and to take steps in order to foster a safe environment for human rights defenders.
We further call upon you to report to the Council of Europe on your plans to investigate the acts of the State agents, which prevented Leyla Yunus and Arif Yunus from leaving the country and later detained them and to end all persecutions against them and other human rights defenders.
Sincerely,
Human Rights House Azerbaijan (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Azerbaijan Lawyers Association
- Institute for Reporters’ Safety and Freedom
- Legal Education Society
- Media Rights Institute
- Women Association for Rational Development
Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Belarusian PEN Centre
- Belarus Watch
- City Public Association “Centar Supolnaść”
- Human Rights Centre “Viasna”
Human Rights House Belgrade (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
- Lawyers Committee for Human Rights YUCOM
- Civic Initiatives
- Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
- Policy Centre
Human Rights House Kiev (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law-Enforcement
- Human Rights Information Centre
- Center for Civil Liberties
- Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
Free Word Centre London (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Index on Censorship
- Vivarta
Human Rights House Sarajevo (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Helsinki Committee for human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Human Rights House Tbilisi (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims – GCRT
- Caucasian Center for Human Rights and Conflict Studies
- Human Rights Centre
- Union Sapari
- Article 42 of the Constitution
- Media Institute
Human Rights House Oslo (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Health and Human Rights Info
- Human Rights House Foundation
- FIAN Norway
Human Rights House Voronezh (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Charitable Foundation
- Civic Initiatives Development Centre
- Confederation of Free Labor
- For Ecological and Social Justice
- Free University
- Golos
- Interregional Trade Union of Literary Men
- Lawyers for labor rights
- Memorial
- Ms. Olga Gnezdilova
- Soldiers Mothers of Russia
- Voronezh Journalist Club
- Voronezh-Chernozemie
- Youth Human Rights Movement
Human Rights House Yerevan (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- Armenian Helsinki Association
- Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor
- Journalists’ Club “Asparez”
- Democracy Today
Human Rights House Zagreb (on behalf of the following NGOs):
- APEO/UPIM Association for Promotion of Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities
- B.a.B.e.
- CMS – Centre for Peace Studies
- Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past
- GOLJP – Civic Committee for Human Rights
- Svitanje – Association for Protection and Promotion of Mental Health
Rafto Foundation, Norway
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland
Public Union of Democracy Human Rights Resource Centre, Azerbaijan
Legal Protection and Awareness Society, Azerbaijan
Copies have been sent to:
- Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan
- Presidency of the French Republic
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic
- Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe
- Private Office of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
- Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
- Delegation of the Council of Europe in Azerbaijan
- UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders
- Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE ODIHR)
- Delegation of the European Union in Azerbaijan
- Subcommittee on Human Rights of the European Parliament
- Diplomatic community in Baku, Brussels, Geneva and Strasbourg
- Various ministries of foreign affairs and parliamentary committees on foreign affairs
About the Human Rights House Network (www.humanrightshouse.org)
The Human Rights House Network (HRHN) unites 90 human rights NGOs joining forces in 18 independent Human Rights Houses in 13 countries in Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, East and Horn of Africa, and Western Europe. HRHN’s aim is to protect, empower and support human rights organisations locally and unite them in an international network of Human Rights Houses.
The Human Rights House Azerbaijan is one of the members of HRHN and served as an independent meeting place, a resource centre, and a coordinator for human rights organisations in Azerbaijan. In 2010, 6’000 human rights defenders, youth activists, independent journalists, and lawyers, used the facilities of the Human Rights House Azerbaijan, which has become a focal point for promotion and protection of human rights in Azerbaijan. The Human Rights House Azerbaijan has been closed after the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan ordered all activities to be been ceased on 10 March 2011.
The Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), based in Oslo (Norway) with an office in Geneva (Switzerland), is HRHN’s secretariat. HRHF is international partner of the South Caucasus Network of Human Rights Defenders and the Balkan Network of Human Rights Defenders.
HRHF has consultative status with the United Nations and HRHN has participatory status with the Council of Europe.
[1]Statement available at https://www.facebook.com/HumanRightsHouseNetwork/posts/10152035306640965.
[2]Further information on those cases available at http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/20033.html.
30 Apr 2014 | Americas, Brazil
In Curitiba, about 300 protesters took to the streets of the central city asking for more health and safety improvements in the country and against the hosting of the World Cup 2014 in Brazil. (Image: João Frigério / Demotix)
Brazilians shouldn’t protest during the World Cup, according to UEFA President Michel Platini.
Speaking to reporters, the French former footballer who is now head of European football’s governing body, said that: “We must tell the Brazilians that they have the World Cup and they are there to show the beauty of their country and their passion for football. If they can wait at least a month before making social outbursts, it would be good for Brazil and for the football world.”
Brazilians should “pay tribute to this beautiful World Cup,” Platini continued, saying it was given to Brazil to “make them happy”.
He added that Brazilians should get in the mood for receiving tourists from all over the world “and that for one month, they should make a truce”.
The men running football (it is most often men) have a history of making at best misguided, at worst ignorant, statements about complicated issues — FIFA President Sepp Blatter famously suggested racist incidents on the pitch could be settled by a handshake.
However, you would think that the size of last summer’s World Cup-related protests, and the fact that demonstrations are still going on almost a year later, would make even the grandees of world football understand that Brazilians have legitimate grievances — and that these shouldn’t be shoved aside just so we can have a global party.
The various controversies surrounding Brazil 2014, from the price tag of some £7 billion, to lack of transparency and unsafe working conditions at building sites, have been well documented. This is in no small part due Brazilians taking to the streets, making it impossible for their government, FIFA and the rest of the world to ignore their dissatisfaction.
But Platini isn’t the only one who wants protesters to take a break during the very event that for many has been the focus of their anger. Indeed, authorities have taken a number of steps aimed at suppressing demonstrations, including banning people from wearing masks during protests and “promoting ‘tumult’ within 5 km of a sporting event.” The over 170,000 security personnel set to be deployed will probably play their part too.
Whether or not you believe that the intention behind awarding Brazil the World Cup was to make people happy, there’s no escaping that fact that many aren’t. The competition is going ahead, there’s no changing that, but Brazilians should have the right to show their unhappiness about it whenever they like.
This article was published on April 30, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
