The What a Liberty! project were taken on a tour of Lincoln Cathedral during their trip to see the Magna Carta. Credit: Bill Thompson
Members of the What a Liberty! project were taken to see the oldest remaining copy of the Magna Carta at Lincoln Castle on Saturday, where they gained an understanding about the creation of the ancient document and its impact on history.
The Heritage Lottery-funded project has recruited a group of young people with the aim of providing them training in film, journalism and digital skills to create their own Magna Carta 2.0; and the trip gave the participants involved the opportunity to find inspiration for their own charter.
After a keynote speech from Dr Erik Grigg on how Magna Carta was made with the intention of protecting only a small amount of King John of England’s people but excluded the vast majority of the population — the peasants or the “unfree” — much of the group felt encouraged to ensure people of all classes and backgrounds were treated equally.
“I’d like to produce something with equality for different classes, with all ethnic backgrounds having equal rights to prevent them from being discriminated or segregated,” said Jessie Sbresni.
Taali Lionel-Levy added: “Peasants didn’t really have much. People from poorer backgrounds should have been included more. That was unfair.”
It was not only equality for different classes that the group wanted after hearing more about the Magna Carta, but also gender equality. Maria Abukhadra said: “Women couldn’t do certain things which I found a bit sexist, so I’d want to make sure there was equality for all genders. There would be equality for every individual.”
What a Liberty! project members Alisia Usher and Victoria Sajuyigbe take photos during a walk along Lincoln Castle’s wall. Credit: Bill Thompson
Before taking a tour around the Victorian prison and its chapel, inside the Lincoln Castle grounds, the group were taken to the vaults where the Magna Carta is displayed. The ancient document is still influential today; most notably we have the right to a trial by jury today thanks to its inclusion in the original Magna Carta.
Darshan Leslie said: “It was quite a special experience seeing one of the original copies in person, and getting to see the origins of the liberties and freedoms that we have today.
“I’ve learnt all about how it started with King John, and how he signed it but didn’t stick to it. Which led to a new charter, the Charter of the Forest. I thought that was very interesting to know about.”
To end the day, the group was taken on a tour of Lincoln Cathedral where they were taught more about the importance of religion in Lincoln’s history; and the symbolism of the cathedral’s architecture.
“I loved the idea of experiencing history first hand. It’s all well and good hearing about it but being able to see it and touch it has been awesome,” Esther Olusanya said.
Sarah Barber, co-editor of the Young Journalist Academy programme, who has been working with the group on the project said of the day: “I think its been good for the group to think about the different themes that their Magna Carta could cover because there are areas that we spoke about today that hadn’t been discussed before.
“I’ll be working with the group next on the media training so that they can create their Magna Carta 2.0. I’m going to be training them in the use of cameras and editing software, and we are going to be looking at creating a website too.”
From an artist who had barely used Facebook to the face of #YoTambienExijo, the international online movement for free speech – Tania Bruguera describes how the perfect coalescence of art, social media and politics allowed the world to see the real Cuba at a crucial time in the country’s history.
The beginnings of the #YoTambienExijo movement were born on 17 December 2014, when President Obama announcement a landmark warming of the 53-year chill between the United States and Cuba.
“When I first heard about the Cuba-US reconciliation it had a great impact on me as an artist, but also as a Cuban citizen,” Tania Bruguera told Index. “I was glad about the decision, but at the same time a lot of questions came to my head. Who is going to define that different Cuba? Who is going to be in charge of creating that different Cuba?”
Writing an open letter addressed to Obama, the Pope and Cuban president Raúl Castro, Bruguera demanded for Cubans “the right to know what is being planned with our lives”, also demanding that Cuban citizens gain more from his political change than a place at the table of North American trade.
“Yo Tambien Exijo was one of the phrases in the letter – I also demand. I also demand to know. I demand as a Cuban.”
The sentiment resonated with many Cubans around the world, and after her sister Deborah Bruguera created the Facebook page, #YoTambienExijo, the site quickly attracted thousands of followers.
In the final part of her letter, Bruguera called for Castro to hand over the microphone to the people of Cuba – a reference to a performance piece of Bruguera’s which gives any audience member one minute of unhindered free speech. The idea captured the imagination of #YoTambienExijo’s online audience, who asked Bruguera to stage the performance at the Havana Biennial, an art fair taking place in Cuba’s capital that month.
But arriving in the country days later, Bruguera found her words had not been met with the same level of support by the Cuba government. “I was pretty naïve,” says Bruguera. “When I entered the country, I start behaving as if human rights were being respected. And that clashed with reality.”
A smear campaign was launched against Bruguera, with government-sponsored blogs characterizing the artist as a provocateur acting under the influence of foreign pressure, and even labeling her as a drug smuggler. It’s not uncommon for the Cuban government to attempt to undermine dissenting voices as CIA or right wing, the artist says: “I think one good thing is I’ve worked for 20 years. So people know who I am. Sometime when you are dissident or you are an activist just starting working, in Cuba they are very good at putting in people’s mind the image of that person they want for the rest of the people.”
But in spite of continued pressure from government officials to cancel the performance, Bruguera refused. “I always say I have no money, I have nothing. I have only my word. So I have to defend that. In this case I gave my word to the 12,000 people who were waiting for this.”
Organising collective action is difficult in Cuba, where low internet connectivity and high levels of state security tend to impede any political protest. So the #YoTambienExijo team put out an online plea for Cubans around the world to call their families and tell them about the performance – which many did.
On the day of the performance Bruguera was arrested, along with several dissidents who had expressed solidarity with Bruguera’s project. But the attempt to stop the performance failed; news of the #YoTambienExijo page and the performance had already spread to Cuban people.
Imprisoned for the whole performance (she was subsequently released and then rearrested twice), Bruguera only learnt later of the arrests of several audience members. As these events unfolded, reporting from the #YoTambienExijo team spread online, gathering international support for Bruguera, and after 14 prominent artists wrote a letter to The Guardian condemning Bruguera’s arrest, the hashtag #FreeTaniaBruguera soon began trending, and another online letter began circulating. “In 24 hours, more than 3,000 people from the international art world signed, including directors from MoMa and the Tate.” Bruguera refused to allow her own release until all audience members were freed along with her. The mounting pressure from the global community meant that, eventually, the every person arrested in connection with the performance was released.
These events were an important wake-up call, Bruguera believes. “Cuba was trying to sell itself to the world as the next opportunity for business, and as a good person, as a victim for 50 years. This unveiled the truth.” In reality, Cuban government’s control over media public discussion and the arts has been absolute for over five decades.
But what happened also showed Bruguera a way forward for Cuba. “It was for me a very difficult experience – the most difficult I have ever had in my life. But it really put us in a way that we are all together, and we understood that we can make a change in Cuba. Because we were able to mobilize not only that many Cubans, but we were able to mobilize also a big group of international artists.”
The international reaction to Bruguera’s story turned #YoTambienExijo into a movement capturing more than just the Cuban experience. Around the world performances were staged in solidarity, with arts organisations including Creative Time in New York, the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles, Netherlands’ Van Abbe Museum, and the Tate Modern, all giving audiences one minute of free speech. It also became a form of protest in countries around the world where citizens and artists face censorship.
“It became Cuba focused and then it became more about totalitarianism in the world in general,” said Bruguera. “And it became also about the role of an artist who wants to deal with political issues in contemporary art.”
Last year Bruguera was shortlisted for the Hugo Boss prize and named one of Foreign Policy’s Global thinkers of 2015. She is now planning to return to Cuba to set up a space in Havana, the Hannah Arendt International Institute of Art and Artivism, a place for the Cuban people to advance their freedom of expression.
Thousands of people gather in solidarity outside Zaman newspaper in Istanbul on 5 March 2016.
Nicole Pope is an independent writer, journalist, Turkey analyst, translator, editor, consultant. Pope was a columnist for Today’s Zaman since its launch on 15 January 2007. This column was rejected by the new management of Zaman.
How do you write a column for a newspaper that still exists nominally but has been taken over by trustees appointed by an “independent” court? Such are the dilemmas in a country where democratic standards are slipping rapidly. No journalism school or manual of ethical journalism prepares one for such a situation.
Do you stop writing immediately to stand against an obvious violation of press freedom and show solidarity with colleagues who have already been dismissed? Or do you sit down to pen one last column in support of the journalists and employees still at work, whose livelihood is under threat? They are doing their job and preparing a newspaper even though they know, as I do, that in the current hostile environment it is unlikely to be published in its original form or even published at all.
I opted for the latter, which potentially also offers the opportunity to thank the readers who have followed me over the years and to comment on the rapid deterioration of fundamental freedoms in Turkey.
The takeover of the Zaman group, supported by tear gas and water cannons, was reflected on television screens around the world in all its brutality. It needs to be viewed in a broader context as the latest of many blows inflicted to the independence of the media in Turkey where journalists’ ability to cover events and hold those in power accountable has been shrinking for some time.
In recent months, the crackdown has intensified. Few independent outlets remain, particularly on television, which reaches the widest audience. This allows the authorities to control the narrative and produce a sanitized version of events that suit their purposes.
The notion that criticism can be constructive, allowing societies to improve, grow and be more innovative and also ensuring that those in power serve the interests of the population as a whole, has vanished entirely in the black and white, with us or against us world that the “new” Justice and Development Party (AKP) has constructed.
After spending more than a quarter of a century covering Turkey, I’m aware that media independence has always been an elusive concept, not just for politicians, but also for media groups — even this one, in some instances — and among journalists themselves. In the twists and turns of Turkish politics, we’ve all been caught short at one point or another.
What makes the current decline particularly painful is that for a brief moment in its early years, the AKP lifted some red lines and allowed sensitive topics to be discussed more openly. But the window did not remain open for long. Today, the power exercised in the past by the military-backed state has shifted to different hands and it is more concentrated than ever before.
Some 30 journalists are currently behind bars. Countless others face judicial harassment and pay regular visits to court to answer ludicrous charges designed to intimidate and silence them. The recent Constitutional Court’s decision to release Can Dündar and Erdem Gül provided only a brief respite.
Media independence and freedom of expression are important in and of themselves, but they also underpin other rights, allowing violations to be exposed to public scrutiny. In the absence of free media access, the human cost and the devastation caused by the blanket curfews imposed in places like Cizre and Sur, where government forces are fighting Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants, have not received adequate attention, for instance, although ministers acknowledge that 355,000 residents have been displaced.
With much of the media under government control, the voices of progressive women are also being drowned. As the world marks International Women’s Day, the Turkish authorities have resorted to prohibitions and rubber bullets to prevent Turkish women from taking their demands to the streets.
Violence against women and the struggle for gender equality have always occupied an important place in this column because I view the prevailing brand of macho politics, which imposes views instead of seeking compromise and rules through confrontation rather than consensus, as a major hindrance to Turkey’s democratic and economic development.
This patriarchal approach, based on traditional gender roles, currently reigns supreme. It goes hand-in-hand with a top-down understanding of politics that brooks no dissent and wants to silence independent voices in the media and in society. As I bid readers goodbye, I wish I could have ended on a more optimistic note.
The intertwining nature of music and politics is nothing new. Tom Morello, former Rage Against the Machine guitarist, has been raging against corruption and inept politicians for years. Bernie Sanders, influenced by folk greats like Pete Seeger and Bob Dylan, released an EP of covers with the help of fellow Vermont artists and politicians in 1987. Even former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a classically trained performer since her adolescent years, played piano alongside Aretha Franklin in Philadelphia in 2010. However, the words “Taiwanese parliament” and “death metal” are not a combination most are familiar with. Freddy Lim, frontman of one of Asia’s most popular heavy-metal bands, Chthonic, is out to change that.
Lim recently won a seat in parliament representing the New Power Party and defeating Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) member Lin Yu-fang, who had held his seat for 20 years. The election saw an end to KMT control, with Tsai Ing-wen, the Democratic Progress Party, becoming Taiwan’s first female president. Lim, a longtime human rights activist, served as president of Taiwan’s Amnesty International branch from 2010 until 2014. Lim’s unconventional persona — performing in excessive face paint and flaunting tattooed biceps — has been attractive to the country’s youth, who have been receptive to Lim’s political activism around gay rights, government transparency and environmental issues.
Index on Censorship had the chance to discuss Lim’s outlook on Taiwanese politics and the power of music.
Index: What are your biggest goals for your term? Which do you hope to accomplish first?
Lim: I hope that during my term, we are able to deepen the democracy in Taiwan. Within the next four years, I hope we are able to correct a lot of things, including fixing our current referendum laws, reworking our impeachment laws so we can actually vote a public official out of office. I’m hoping to help complete the improvement our legislature through reform — to allow our legislators to be able to conduct investigations when they need to, also to allow the legislature to be monitored by citizens, and to give the legislature the ability to monitor the government.
Index: How do you think music breaks down suppression and censorship in the world? In Taiwan?
Lim: Music is a very special medium. It can break through barriers of language as well as socioeconomic barriers that stem from differing backgrounds and upbringing. It’s also softer, it’s different from preaching, so I think it has a special power to break through boundaries. So, for example, in China they have extensive censorship of the internet, they are prohibited from viewing YouTube and Facebook and a lot of different other methods of coming into contact with various types of important information. But now they’ve found ways around that, to find out the information that they want. And within all of this information, I think music is very special, because through music — for our Chinese fans at least, a lot of them find out about Taiwanese history through listening to Chthonic’s music. It’s different from a lecture, reading theoretical books or just learning from history lessons to get to know Taiwan’s current state. A lot of the Chinese fans that I know came to know Taiwan’s history and came to understand it through Chthonic’s music.
Index: What are the pressures in speaking about taboo subjects like being less reliant on China?
Lim: In Taiwan, when you talk about more ‘taboo’ subjects, actually there aren’t really any taboo subjects because we are a free and open country. So when you talk about these things, such as in China, well, in China they just won’t report on it but in Taiwan it is okay. For example, if you talk about Free Tibet, or supporting the freedom of the Chinese people to pursue democracy. There are peculiar groups in Taiwan that are close to China that will give you some pressure, but in terms of this particular question, when you talk about things like “cutting ties and being less reliant on China”, it’s not really prohibited since most people in Taiwan believe that Taiwan is different from China and is a separate country, so when you talk about being less reliant on China actually there isn’t much pressure there. Things that will cause more pressure might be like supporting Free Tibet, or supporting human rights group within China, or things having to do with democracy in China, or protection of legal rights, there might be some pressure such as through verbal threats, they might call us, or perhaps through the internet we receive threats. Or like previously when Chthonic toured abroad, due to my activities with Free Tibet and support of Chinese democracy, there have been some self-proclaimed Chinese students that have given us pressure, threatening that we should not perform on stage otherwise they were going to kill us or something like that. There are a lot of vocal threats, but we won’t be afraid to talk about these kinds of things because of that.
Index: Do you feel like you deal with censorship more so with your music career or political career?
Lim: Actually, I don’t feel strongly either way; maybe it’s because of my personality, but I don’t think that in either my music or political career I’ve felt censorship because in Taiwan we are fundamentally a more free country and so there isn’t any systemic pressure, they won’t really do anything. However, in reality in business or industry, in terms of doing business, in music you can clearly feel there’s some media outlets, or some music businesses, or events or festivals, if they have closer ties with China or if the group responsible for it is on friendly terms with China they won’t want you to go talking those types of things. So on a certain level, in my music career, in Taiwan, in the entertainment or music industry, there is some degree of pressure, but I feel like for Chthonic this isn’t a huge issue because the Chinese market is not our primary market so we aren’t really inconvenienced by it by any means.
Index: Which political leaders influence you during the songwriting process? What artists/bands do you go to for inspiration?
Lim: For me, when I write songs a lot of my inspiration doesn’t come from political leaders, rather it comes from bands and artists I like, such as some Taiwanese singers like Yu-Tian, Shen Wen Chen, Yeh Qi-Tian, and some that I used to really love such as Chen Yi-Lang, as well as Taiwanese Opera. In addition there are also foreign metal bands like Slayer, I really like Slayer, Pantera, Emperor, these are all bands I really love. In terms of political leaders, I really respect and admire, the one that stands out is the Dalai Lama.
Index: How do you think gatherings like the Chthonic 20th anniversary show can help make people more politically aware?
Lim: I think in terms of soft events, such as our 20th anniversary, the primary focus is still as a fun event, to let everyone have a good time, that is its nature is in entertainment, in the excitement that people get from listening to metal, so I think at its core it is still to let everyone have a good time. Now in terms of politics, I feel like it depends on the circumstance. Of course, we would hope that our fans or people that come to our shows can feel and understand some of our own political views, but the music is still the focal point when we hold these events, and for the political aspect, we just allow this exchange to happen and hope it inspires some people and that’s it.
Index: What do you think the similarities and differences are between the two types of gatherings? How do you work to bridge that gap between the two?
Lim: I think that no matter if it’s a political gathering or a musical gathering, the most important thing is the situation, it’s different from going to a lecture. For example, at a political gathering, I feel like a successful political gathering it is important to consider the logos and ethos of the audience members, whereas in terms of musical gatherings, obviously it is heavier on the ethos because most audience members at a metal show just want to have a good time, to enjoy the music. They’re not going to be analysing your lyrics or picking apart the musical or its composition. However, in political gatherings I feel like the rationale of the audience must be taken into more consideration because the people in the audience are there to logically analyse your presentation. However, I feel that in political gatherings the emotional aspect is still very important, as we can’t focus purely on logic. So how are you going to address [these political issues] with reference to the land, to history, to the people, to the relationships between the people, how are you going to call on that, to touch these emotions and to touch the people and to inspire them to rally with you? I think this is very important.
Index: How has music helped you express your misgivings about the Taiwanese government?
Lim: Actually, our music rarely expresses our misgivings about the Taiwanese government. Our music is focused primarily on Taiwanese mythology, history, legends…oh and some are ghost stories, so actually we don’t really express ‘misgivings about the Taiwanese government’. On the contrary, our music fans will express their own anger towards the government through our songs and at our concerts, sometimes even more so than we ourselves, which is pretty interesting.
Index: What kind of methods do you plan to use to promote free expression in Taiwan?
Lim: I haven’t really thought of methods to promote free expression in Taiwan, I think that Taiwan is already a country that should have freedom of expression, so to protect this freedom is to protect Taiwanese human rights and related institutions, so in this aspect, in interactions between Taiwan and China, or Taiwan and other countries where freedom of expression is suppressed, we need to have a greater precaution in our approach, like right now between Taiwan and China. Although Taiwan itself is already a country that has freedom of speech, because we are too close to China, there have been compromises, some of which I mentioned earlier, such as in the entertainment business, music industry, and publication industry, there has been some self-censorship in order to appeal to the Chinese market, and so I think that if we are going to promote free expression in Taiwan, one of the most important things is to place freedom of expression at the forefront when we are interacting or collaborating with other countries, to have it written into the contracts and so forth so that we do not compromise the value of the free expression that we already have.
Index on Censorship has teamed up with the producers of an award-winning documentary about Mali’s musicians, They Will Have To Kill Us First, to create the Music in Exile Fund to support musicians facing censorship globally. You can donate here, or give £10 by texting “BAND61 £10” to 70070.
