Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Prev
Next
Sol y capital
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”111701″ img_size=”large” add_caption=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Con ocasión de las nuevas medidas aprobadas por Reino Unido para abordar el blanqueo de capitales en las Islas Vírgenes Británicas, Davion Smith trata otros problemas de secretismo que dificultan los esfuerzos de los reporteros por descubrir la verdad”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Al formar los expatriados una parte considerable de la población de las Islas Vírgenes Británicas, apenas hay naturales del país entre los periodistas que trabajan en la prensa generalista local. Procedentes de naciones con una legislación de libertad de información firmemente instaurada, se encuentran con una sociedad en la que el acceso a datos está complicado. Esto se debe a que, a día de hoy, aún no existen leyes de la información en este territorio británico de ultramar, pese a las peticiones de que se implementen.
Pocas personas conocen las dificultades asociadas a la ausencia de dichas leyes tan bien como Zan Lewis, un periodista para la televisión que lleva 18 años informando en la zona.
“Siempre ha sido difícil conseguir información, sobre todo cuando intentas hacerlo a través del Gobierno. Es bien sabido que el Gobierno tiende a cribar los datos”, comenta.
El protocolo cultural para la obtención de datos sobre cuestiones gubernamentales y expedientes públicos normalmente dicta que los periodistas contacten con los departamentos responsables en cada caso. Después, el reportero en cuestión ha de dirigirse a funcionarios que a menudo se muestran cautelosos sobre facilitar información de cualquier tipo.
Esta implacable reticencia está arraigada en el miedo de los funcionarios a represalias del Gobierno, que podrían resultar en perder su empleo; por ello, a veces, para eludir las preguntas de los reporteros, los funcionarios utilizan la expresión: “Nos han ordenado que no hablemos con los medios”.
“Probablemente tengan datos que sean públicos y nadie esté intentando esconder —dice Freeman Rodgers, editor del periódico BVI Beacon—. Pero, al no existir un sistema claramente definido o una ley que diga ‘esto es conocimiento público’ y ‘esto no lo es’, creo que los funcionaros tienen a pecar de precavidos y normalmente prefieren no darte la información que estás buscando”.
Naturalmente, no todo tipo de información es necesariamente inofensiva, y al no existir libertades definidas en ese respecto, es difícil identificar dónde empieza la corrupción.
El país ya ha sido testigo de un escándalo —si bien uno ajeno al control del Gobierno— en el que la dificultad de acceso a información fue fundamental. Estas pequeñas islas del Caribe, con una población de unos 30.000 habitantes, aparecieron directamente involucradas en las revelaciones de 2016 sobre paraísos fiscales, conocidas como Papeles de Panamá. El mes pasado se anunció que los territorios británicos de ultramar, las Islas Vírgenes incluidas, estarían obligados a revelar las identidades de los propietarios de compañías con sede allí desde que Reino Unido aprobara nuevas medidas para abordar el blanqueo de capitales y la corrupción. La medida las obligará a hacer públicos los nombres de los dueños de todas las empresas registradas allí antes del fin de 2020.
También en mi caso he visto ejemplos de cómo contactar con departamentos gubernamentales en busca de expedientes ha resultado en clásicos casos de cargarle el muerto a otra persona. Una vez me dirigieron al ministro al cargo del tema. El ministro quería mandarme donde el secretario permanente del ministerio, que a su vez me indicó que acudiera al responsable de subdirección. Poco después, y sin haber hecho muchos progresos, me volvieron a desviar al ministro del principio.
En estas circunstancias, las operaciones de investigación relacionadas con el Gobierno local han resultado a veces en reportajes muy superficiales. Los periodistas virgenenses, que practican su labor en lo que podría describirse como un entorno mediático antipático, dependen de la información facilitada por chivatos que a menudo insisten mantener el anonimato. Esto ha llamado la atención del primer ministro de las Islas Vírgenes, Daniel Orlando Smith, que ha señalado los casos en aumento de denuncias anónimas y concluido por lo tanto que, en efecto, sí existe “libertad de información” en el territorio.
“Hasta cuando no hago público un documento acaba saliendo a la luz: eso es libertad de información”, aducía en una de sus intervenciones en una conferencia de prensa a principios de año.
Pese a la ausencia de estas leyes fundamentales, y pese a las dificultades que ello conlleva, tanto Freeman como Lewis han dado parte de una mejora en las circunstancias para acceder a información en las islas estos últimos años. Le atribuyen esta mejora al auge del llamamiento por una legislación que garantice la libertad de información.
“Hace 12 años, cuando llegué, no dejábamos de pedirlo. Al principio parecía que no nos escuchaba nadie, pero ahora creo que hay quienes han empezado a hacerlo, y que la gente está empezando a darse cuenta de su importancia. Creo que eso ha ayudado a que la información sea más accesible”, cuenta Freeman, que emigró desde EE.UU. para trabajar en las islas.
A lo largo de los años, los llamamientos a la legislación han provenido del antiguo comisionado de denuncias, el ya fallecido Elton Georges, y del exgobernador John Duncan, entre otros.
Augustus Jaspert, recientemente nombrado Gobernador de las Islas Vírgenes Británicas, ha puesto la instauración de dicha ley sobre la mesa. El pasado marzo, en su “Discurso desde el Trono” —una tradición con la que el Gobierno expone ante el parlamento los próximos puntos por tratar en su programa—, Jaspert prometió introducir un proyecto de ley de libertad de información en la Asamblea Legislativa del territorio antes de concluir el año.
“Esta legislación permitirá una mayor transparencia y más responsabilidad en cuanto a asuntos públicos —dijo—. El proyecto de ley incluye la recomendación de instaurar una Unidad de Libertad de Información que facilite al público los mecanismos administrativos adecuados para realizar y recibir solicitudes”.
Sin embargo, esta no es la primera vez que se promete una propuesta de ley de este tipo. Según la hemeroteca del BVI Beacon, las promesas de instaurar dicha ley se remontan a 2004.
El periódico dio parte de una Comisión de Reforma Legislativa que en 2004 emitió un informe al Gobierno de las Islas Vírgenes Británicas en el que recomendaba legislación concerniente a la libertad de información.
Desde aquello ha habido dos administraciones en el poder, ninguna de las cuales parece haber avanzado en absoluto en la implementación de la ley. Y, mientras las islas siguen demorándose en la tarea, el Gobierno actual ha de hacer frente a numerosas críticas sobre su falta de transparencia y evasión de responsabilidades.
Cabe reconocer el mérito de las críticas, dado que la prensa —y, por extensión, el público— lleva alrededor de una década incapaz de realizar un escrutinio exhaustivo de las operaciones del Gobierno de las islas. En 2017 se marcaron unos 10 años desde que el Gobierno produjera su último informe o auditoría financiera, y se halla actualmente en el proceso de preparar informes de carácter retroactivo.
Las críticas han surgido desde la propia administración de Smith, con la consiguiente división que ha provocado entre miembros del Gobierno. Según un reportaje online de BVI News, de marzo de 2018, ciertos miembros del Gobierno declararon que el primer ministro del país habría iniciado ciertas actividades en departamentos y ministerios «sin el conocimiento o consentimiento de los ministros constitucionalmente responsables de esas cuestiones».
El Gobierno también ha recibido críticas de la oposición parlamentaria. Otras naciones caribeñas, como San Cristóbal y Nieves, Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad y Tobago o la República Dominicana ya han implementado leyes de libertad de información.
En vista de lo que puede describirse como ejemplos flagrantes de gestión cuestionable en las Islas Vírgenes Británicas, las demandas de una legislación por la libertad de información se están incrementando. Este aumento es bienvenido entre la pequeña fraternidad de periodistas que defienden la capacidad de la libertad de información para promover la asunción de responsabilidades, la transparencia y el buen gobierno.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Davion Smith es reportero para BVI News. Vive en la isla de Tórtola.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips named new chair of Index on Censorship board
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”100734″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has named writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips as its new chair. Phillips succeeds journalist David Aaronovitch whose five-year term ends in September.
Phillips is a writer and television producer. He currently works between the US and the UK, serving as chairman of New York-based think-tank, the Center for Talent Innovation and as president of the council of the John Lewis Partnership. A former chair of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, Phillips is currently writing a prequel to his successful book Windrush.
“Trevor believes passionately in argument, debate and free expression. He’s not afraid of expressing a view and he’s not afraid of others expressing theirs. He’s a great fit for Index,” said current chair David Aaronovitch.
Previous chairs of Index include the broadcasters Anna Ford and Jonathan Dimbleby.
In the past five years, Aaronovitch has played an active role in debates on the value of free expression, especially in the wake of events such as Charlie Hebdo, and overseen the recruitment of a new chief executive, former Reuters London Bureau Chief Jodie Ginsberg. During his tenure, the organisation has transformed its annual Freedom of Expression Awards into a year-long fellowship programme, and introduced new flagship projects, including training for UK arts organisations on the law and free speech and a European media freedom monitoring project.
“David brought calm humour and good sense to the board and organisation at a time filled with difficult attacks on both the concept of free expression and on those who dare to exercise their precious rights,” board member David Schlesinger said.
Phillips will take over as chair in September as the organisation prepares to increase its work both in the United States and in coverage of issues of censorship online.
“At a time when the world is beset by conflict, and in many cases repression, the case for diversity of voices globally could not be plainer,” said Phillips. “The advent of new technologies has made it more possible for those voices to be heard; but both governments and non-state actors have redoubled their efforts to silence their opponents.”
He added: “For many, the last freedom that will be left is the ability to tell the truth as they see it. Courageous journalists, writers and campaigners are the front line troops in the battle to protect our understanding and insight of what is taking place; and all too many are paying the price in the loss of their own freedoms, and of their own lives. Those of us who enjoy freedom can do more than wring our hands – we can take practical steps to support those who face the threat of being silenced.”
“Index is the premier organisation backing the voices standing up for free expression, and I feel privileged to be asked to succeed my friend David Aaronovitch as chair, and to support the work of Index’s outstanding team.”
For more information, please contact [email protected][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]About Trevor Phillips
Born in London in 1953, Trevor Phillips was educated in London and in Georgetown, Guyana, and studied chemistry at Imperial College London. Between 1978 and 1980, he was president of The National Union of Students.
He joined London Weekend Television as a researcher, rising to become Head of Current Affairs, before leaving to found Pepper Productions. He has been a Vice-President of the Royal Television Society since 2000. His most recent films include Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True and Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?.
Trevor retains an active interest in the arts and music and is a board member of the Barbican Arts Centre and of Headlong Theatre. His other voluntary activities include serving as a board member of the Social Mobility Foundation, and of the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion. He chairs the WEA, a charity providing over 150,000 hours of adult education each year.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]About Index
Index on Censorship is a UK-based nonprofit that campaigns against censorship and promotes free expression worldwide. Founded in 1972, Index has published some of the world’s leading writers and artists in its award-winning quarterly magazine, including Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Samuel Beckett and Kurt Vonnegut. Index promotes debate, monitors threats to free speech and supports individuals through its annual awards and fellowship program.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1528726171148-fc3ce605-f7a7-5″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Editorial: The censor’s new clothes
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” full_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1481647350516{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/magazine-cover-subhead.jpg?id=82616) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: contain !important;}”][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Governments that introduce bans on clothing and other forms of expression are sending a signal about their own lack of confidence” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
IF YOU HAVE to introduce laws telling your citizens that they are banned from wearing purple, sporting red velvet, or showing their knees, then, frankly, you are in trouble.
But again and again, when times get tough or leaders think they should be, governments tell their people what to wear, or more often, what not to wear.
“Dare to wear this,” they say, “and we will be down on you like a ton of bricks.” Why any government thinks this is going to improve their power, the economy or put their country on a better footing is a mystery. History suggests you never strike up a more profitable relationship with your people by removing the freedom to wear specific types of clothing or, conversely, telling everyone that they have to wear the same thing. We are either consumed by rebellion, or by dullness.
The Romans tried it with purple (only allowed for the emperor and his special friends). The Puritans tried it with gold and silver (just for the magistrates and a few highfaluting types). Right now the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran ban women from wearing anything but head-to-toe cover-ups along with a range of other limitations. In one frightening case in the past month there were calls via social media for a woman in Saudi Arabia to be killed because she went out shopping “uncovered” without a hijab or abaya. One tweet read: “Kill her and throw her corpse to the dogs.”
Banning any type of freedom of expression, often including free speech, or freedom of assembly, usually happens in times of national angst, economic downturn or crisis, when governments are not acting either in the interest of their people, or the national good. These are not healthy, confident nations, but nations that fear allowing their people to speak, act and think. And that fear can express itself in mandating or restricting types of expression. Generally, as with other restrictions on freedom found in the US First Amendment, enforcing such bans doesn’t sweep in a period of prosperity for countries that impose them.
At different points in world history governments have forced a small group of people to wear particular things, or tried to wipe out styles of clothing they did not approve of. In medieval Europe, for instance, non-Christians were, at certain periods, forced to wear badges such as stars or crescents as were Christians who refused to conform to a state religion, such as the Cathars. Forcing a particular badge or clothing to be worn sends a signal of exclusion. Those authorities are, by implication, saying to the majority that there is a difference in the status of the minority, and in doing so opening them up either to attack, or at least suspicion. Not much has changed between then and now. Historically groups that have been forced to wear some kind of badge or special outfit have then found themselves ostracised or physically attacked. The most obvious modern example is Jews being forced to wear yellow stars in Nazi Germany, but this is not the only time minorities have been legally forced to stand out from the crowd. In 2001 the Taliban ruled that Afghan Hindus had to wear a public label to signify they were non-Muslims. The intent of such actions are clear: to create tension.
The other side of this clothing coin is when clans, tribes or groups who choose to dress differently from the mainstream, for historical religious reasons, or even just because they follow a particular musical style, are persecuted because of that visual difference, because of what it stands for, or because they are seen as rebelling against authority. In some cases strict laws have been put in place to try and force change, in other cases certain people decide to take action. In 1746, for instance, the British government banned kilts and tartans (except for the military) under the Dress Act, a reaction said to be motivated by support for rebellions to return Catholic (Stuart) monarchs to the British throne. Those who ignored the order faced six months in prison for the first instance, and seven years deportation for the second. Those who wear distinctive, and traditional clothing, out of choice can face other disadvantages. For years, the Oromo people in Ethiopia, who wear distinctive clothing, have long faced discrimination, but in 2016 dozens of Oromo people were killed at a religious festival, after police fired bullets into the crowd. And in her article Eliza Vitri Handayani reports on how the punk movement in Indonesia has attracted animosity and in one case, Indonesian police seized 64 punks, shaved their heads and forced them to bathe in a river to “purify themselves”. Recently the Demak branch of Nadhlatul Ulama, Indonesia’s largest Islamic organisation, has banned reggae and punk concerts because they make young people “dress weird”.
Another cover for restrictions or bans stems from religions. As soon as the word “modesty” is bandied around as a reason for somebody to be prohibited from wearing something then you know you have to worry. Strangely, it is never the person who proclaims that there needs to be a bit more modesty who needs to change their ways. Of course not. It is other people who need to get a lot more modest. The inclusion of modesty standards tends to be used to get women to cover up more than they have done.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”When freedom of expression is quashed, it usually finds a way of squeezing out just to show that the spirit is not vanquished” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Then you get officious types who decide that they have the measure of morality, and start hitting women wearing short skirts (as is happening right now in South Africa and Uganda). For some Ugandan women it feels like a return to the 1970s under dictator Idi Amin “morality” laws.
Trans people can find themselves confronting laws, sometimes centuries old, that lay out what people shouldn’t be allowed to wear. In Guyana a case continues to edge through the court of appeal this year, it argues that a cross-dressing law from 1893 allows the police to arrest or harass trans people. A new collection, the Museum of Transology, which opens in London in January, uses a crowdsourced collection of objects and clothing to chart modern trans life and its conflicts with the mainstream, from a first bra to binders.
When freedom of expression is quashed, it usually finds a way of squeezing out just to show that the spirit is not vanquished. So during the tartan ban in the 18th century, there are tales of highlanders hiding a piece of tartan under other clothes to have it blessed at a Sunday service. And certainly tartan and plaids are plentiful in Scotland today. In the 1930s and 40s when British women and girls were not “expected” to wear trousers or shorts, some bright spark designed a split skirt that could be worn for playing sport. It looked like a short dress (therefore conforming to the accepted code), but they were split like shorts allowing girls to run around with some freedom.
While in Iran, where rules about “modest” dress are enforced viciously with beatings, sales of glitzy high heels go through the roof. No one can stop those women showing the world their personal style in any way they can. Iranian model and designer Tala Raassi, who grew up in Iran, has written about how vital those signs of style are to Iranian women. In a recent article, commenting on the recent burkini ban in France, Raassi wrote of her disappointment that a democratic country would force an individual to put on or take of a piece of clothing. She added: “Freedom is not about the amount of clothing you put on or take off, but about having the choice to do so.”
And that freedom is the clearest sign of a healthy country. We must support the freedom for individuals to make choices, even if we do not agree with them personally. The freedom to be different, if one chooses to be, must not be punished by some kind of lower status or ostracism. National leaders have to learn that taking away freedom of expression from their people is a sign of their failure. Countries with the most freedom are the ones that will historically be seen as the most successful politically, economically and culturally.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachael Jolley is the editor of Index on Censorship magazine. She recently won the editor of the year (special interest) at British Society of Magazine Editors’ 2016 awards
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”86201″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422016643039″][vc_custom_heading text=”T-shirted turmoil” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422016643039|||”][vc_column_text]April 2016
Vicky Baker looks at why slogan shirts are more than a fashion statement and sometimes provoke fear within great state machines.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89180″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064220600624127″][vc_custom_heading text=”Miniskirts” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064220600624127|||”][vc_column_text]February 2006
Salil Tripathi believes the press should not pick and choose what to publish based on who will get offended. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”90622″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228908536934″][vc_custom_heading text=”List to the right ” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228908536934|||”][vc_column_text]July 2001
UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 is further evidence of the government’s indifference to fundamental freedoms – clothing included.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Fashion Rules” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2016%2F12%2Ffashion-rules%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The winter 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at fashion and how people both express freedom through what they wear.
In the issue: interviews with Lily Cole, Paulo Scott and Daphne Selfe, articles by novelists Linda Grant and Maggie Alderson plus Eliza Vitri Handayani on why punks are persecuted in Indonesia.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”82377″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/12/fashion-rules/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]