12 Jul 24 | News and features, Newsletters, Russia, United Kingdom
It’s been a hectic week in British politics after a Labour government was elected in a landslide last week. There are reported to be 30 new bills which will be announced in the King’s speech as part of the state opening of parliament next Tuesday.
As our CEO Jemimah Steinfeld indicated in last week’s newsletter, we at Index are keeping a beady eye on how much new Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government will prioritise freedom of expression at home and abroad. To help guide his thinking, we have put together this manifesto, a wishlist for freedom of expression under the new government.
So far the signs are encouraging. As one of his first acts in office, the new foreign secretary David Lammy called for the immediate release of Russian-British journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza whose plight Index highlighted in April this year. Kara-Murza is languishing in a Russian penal colony in Omsk and there were fears this week for his health after it was reported that he had been moved to the prison’s hospital.
Lammy said in his statement : “His [Kara-Murza’s] absurd 25-year sentence shows the Kremlin’s deep fear that more Russians will know the reality of Putin’s illegal war – and is further evidence of the targeted repression of the opposition.” He also called for his lawyer to have permission to visit him, which subsequently happened.
In other encouraging news for free speech in the UK, human rights lawyer Richard Hermer KC was appointed attorney general. A former colleague of Starmer’s, he will serve in government from the House of Lords. He has a distinguished career fearlessly standing up for human rights highlighted today in a Guardian profile. He recently gave legal advice that the so-called BDS bill proposed by the Conservative government, would stifle free speech. The bill (which never became law) was introduced by the then communities secretary Michael Gove to stop local councils and other public bodies economically boycotting countries like Israel. The new solicitor general, freshly elected MP Sarah Sackman, also worked with Hermer at Matrix Chambers.
Meanwhile Index – as co-chairs of the Anti-SLAPP coalition – has written a letter to the Prime Minister to ask for a bill to be introduced next Tuesday, putting protections in place which prevent Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). Legislation had been introduced as a private members bill in the last parliament. It garnered cross-party support, but never became law. The letter, signed by Index’s Jessica Ní Mhainín and Nik Williams, calls for that bill to be revived and strengthened. As we highlight, these kind of lawsuits not only hinder clampdowns on fraud and corruption, but silence many ordinary people including “sexual violence survivors speaking out after the police or the CPS have refused to bring criminal charges, patients of healthcare services posting reviews to highlight concerns regarding their care, as well as members of the public scrutinising a wide variety of services they have received.” If the Labour government were to introduce a comprehensive Anti-SLAPP law early in their administration, it would be a brave and tangible indication of their commitment to free expression. In the meantime we are holding an event in Dublin on SLAPPs in October and you can sign up for tickets here.
25 Jun 24 | News and features, United Kingdom
Political parties in the UK are now in the final stages of campaigning as they approach the general election on 4 July 2024. During the circus of the campaigning season, important issues can and have slipped through the cracks. We, the undersigned, want to ensure that the next government, whoever it may be, will stand firmly on the side of free expression.
Back in January, Rishi Sunak laid out key targets he wished to deliver before the end of his term, with varying degrees of success. In this spirit, we have compiled our own manifesto outlining key issues relating to free speech that we would like the next UK government to address. They are:
Enact Anti-SLAPP Legislation
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, are a means for those with money to abuse the legal system by threatening critics with costly lawsuits in order to intimidate them into abandoning their position. They have become a silencing tactic in recent years, with journalists in particular being targeted, alongside environmental defenders, writers and sexual violence survivors.
Particularly worrying is the current trend of SLAPPs becoming more common throughout Europe. Over 820 cases were registered by Case, the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, in 2023, 161 of which were lawsuits filed in 2022, a significant jump compared to the 135 filed in 2021. Such lawsuits are a stain on our free speech and media freedom credentials. Many journalists live in fear of them. In addition to the lawsuits we know about there are likely scores of articles that never make it to print because newsrooms fear the potential legal ramifications, articles that could serve the public interest.
Prior to the election being called, a private members bill, called the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, had been put forward by MP Wayne David in an attempt to address the issue. Although the bill itself contained significant flaws and was weaker than many had hoped, it was at least a promising starting point from which to address the problem. However, with the announcement of the general election, the bill is dead.
We call upon the next government to take up the mantle against SLAPPs and to push forward with another, stronger bill that takes a much firmer approach to resolve the problem.
Protect the right to protest
The UK has seen a number of concerning attacks being made on protest rights in recent years. Legislation such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the 2023 Public Order Act have given the police and government sweeping powers to restrict protest, a move criticised by rights groups such as Amnesty International.
In May 2024, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman was ruled by a high court to have acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise peaceful protests. Various groups conducting peaceful protests have suffered as a result, such as environmental activists being handed lengthy prison sentences and pro-Palestine protesters being arrested.
Index has previously spoken out against the increasingly authoritarian approach to protesting in the UK and the worrying climate this creates for those wishing to peacefully exercise their right to free assembly and free expression. We would like to see the next government address the issues raised by repealing these alarming pieces of legislation, ensuring that peaceful protesters are no longer restricted in such fashion, and releasing and/or compensating those who have already been punished.
Take a stand against transnational repression
Transnational repression refers to the various ways that authoritarian governments, such as Russia, China, Iran, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia, reach across borders in order to silence dissent, using a range of tactics including online smear campaigns, threats and physical violence. Awareness of transnational repression has increased in recent years but so too has the phenomenon, not least in the UK.
The most famous example is probably the poisoning of Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in 2018. Other examples include high-profile Hong Kong activists, Iranian journalists and Saudi comedians being assaulted on UK soil. Even on a less violent level, there are too many reports of students being spied on and university courses changed in acts of appeasement.
In November 2022 the UK government formed the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which is meant to be reviewing the UK’s approach to transnational repression. Late last year the taskforce announced it would be taking a more active role in coordinating electoral security, which is welcome given several hacks that have been traced back to China. But as for the broader issue of protecting dissidents overseas, and indeed those who challenge authoritarian regimes, there is little movement.
Index, for example, has worked extensively to highlight the dangers of transnational repression and we ask the next government to take a more proactive approach to tackle it by both protecting those within the state and sanctioning foreign states who utilise such tactics.
Support journalists in exile and in the UK
In May 2024, the BBC reported that the number of BBC World Service journalists working in exile is estimated to have nearly doubled since 2020, in part due to crackdowns in countries such as Russia, Afghanistan and Ethiopia. Similarly, in 2023 Reporters Without Borders (RSF) provided financial assistance to 460 journalists in exile – nearly twice as many as in 2022 – after being inundated with requests from journalists who had been threatened for their work.
As the number of media workers forced to flee their home country grows, the need for the international community to step in and help intensifies. The UK has an obligation to support and protect journalists in this situation by prioritising press freedom in their foreign policy objectives and calling for accountability for those countries who violate it.
For a journalist facing the distressing and difficult reality of living in exile, one of the most useful pieces of aid is a visa. By holding a visa they can live without fear of being sent back to a country where they face persecution, and can continue their work. We call upon the next government to ensure that journalists from abroad who are living in exile are able to obtain emergency visas in order to be kept safe from authoritarian regimes.
At the same time we’d like to go one step further; the next government should place attacks on the media high on the list of their foreign policy priorities, calling for true accountability for those violating press freedom. Ideally emergency visas shouldn’t be necessary as journalists everywhere are protected and we ask the next government to lead the way in upholding and defending media freedom.
In the process the government must show it respects media freedom in the UK. Stories like “Braverman criticised for shutting out Guardian and BBC from Rwanda trip” must become a thing of the past and some of the sections of the 2023 National Security Act should be repealed given their concerning implications for both journalists and whistleblowers.
Don’t go soft on authoritarian regimes
Over the years, the UK has had a habit of welcoming leaders from authoritarian states and overlooking their poor records on human rights. This was a common theme when David Cameron was prime minister, for example. He welcomed, among others, Egyptian President General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi less than two years after 800 unarmed protesters were killed at Rabaa al-Adawiya square in Cairo and Chinese leader Xi Jinping just days after the arrest of bookseller Gui Minhai.
The tradition has continued since. Under current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak the UK has developed a unique relationship with Rwanda, with the state being at the centre of the Conservative’s policy on asylum seekers. It was recently revealed that Rwanda’s top diplomat in the UK oversaw the use of the international justice system to target critics of the regime overseas in a clear example of transnational repression.
Indeed Cameron, in his new role as foreign secretary, went to Saudi Arabia in April for the World Economic Forum and did not press them on their poor human rights record, which amongst other issues sees many punished under draconian blasphemy laws or, in the case of Salma al-Shehab, for simple retweets. Meanwhile senior British government officials last month congratulated the newly appointed head of the Ugandan army, a man accused of abusing critics and of torture. The list could go on.
The next government would do well to choose its friends wisely, rather than helping authoritarian rulers maintain their grip on power and improve their international status.
Reform the Online Safety Act
The aim of the Online Safety Act – to protect children and adults online – is a commendable one. However, there are elements of the bill that are problematic when it comes to the protection of free speech, particularly those relating to encryption. One section of the act seemingly requires service providers to search for illegal content online by breaking end-to-end encryption, which threatens both privacy and cyber-security, as well as leaving the door open for government interference and surveillance.
Encryption is vital to ensure people can express themselves online safely, especially when they’re living under a repressive regime. Not only does the Online Safety Act put the privacy of online users at risk in the UK, the problematic language used in the bill can also be co-opted by other countries with more sinister intentions.
The next UK government needs to address the issues that have been raised by the bill’s passing by reforming and re-wording the legislation.
Advocate for a global limit on commercial surveillance
Another growing threat to free speech both globally and in the UK is the rise in spyware. This problem has worsened as technology has advanced, with highly sophisticated surveillance software – such as the infamous hacking software Pegasus – becoming readily available to governments around the world.
Pervasive surveillance clearly encroaches on people’s right to privacy and data protection and is a threat to free speech more broadly. People can be put off political participation, or even just from expressing their opinion freely, if they think they are being spied upon by the state. Spyware also often targets individuals like journalists, politicians and activists as a means of repression and intimidation.
We call upon the UK government to support the implementation of a global moratorium on commercial spyware until proper safeguards are put in place to deal with these threats. Controls and guardrails must be enforced globally to ensure that any surveillance tools comply with human rights.
Preserve academic freedom
Threats to academic freedom are widely viewed to be more of a problem in the USA than the UK. That said there have been worrying signs here which ought to be addressed before the problem escalates.
The number of reports of university events and speakers being cancelled has grown in recent years. This was supposedly the motivation behind the government’s introduction of a free speech tsar in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which came into effect in 2023 and has been criticised by some for being “lip service” to free speech issues.
The tsar, Arif Ahmed, said at the time of his appointment that he would remain politically neutral in his efforts to combat attacks to free speech on campus. We can only hope he is true to his word. The current government has tried to interfere in universities, such as threatening to regulate certain academic approaches (in 2020 the then-equalities minister Kemi Badendoch condemned critical race theory – an academic field focussed on discussions of white privilege and structural racism – and the government declared itself “unequivocally against” the concept, for example).
Another threat is aforementioned – that of transnational repression – with students reporting growing fears of surveillance on campus, especially Chinese students. When you add in increasing fears around book banning in school libraries, there is a clear argument that free speech in education needs close attention in order to truly preserve academic freedom. But this must not come from a party-political position. Politics must not enter the classroom or lecture hall.
Support British nationals overseas
There are several British nationals overseas who are currently in prison, serving time for no crime at all. They are people who have been committed to free expression, human rights and democracy and for this they have lost their own freedom. Three of the most prominent are Jimmy Lai, a media mogul who is in jail in Hong Kong, Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a writer and activist who has been in and out of prison in Egypt for a decade now, and Vladimir Kara-Murza, a journalist and activist who has been behind bars since 2022.
The UK government has demonstrated a lack of commitment to help free these three men and we urge the next government to reverse this trend. The unjust imprisonments of them, and others like them, must be a priority and must then act as a blueprint for future action if other British nationals find themselves at the mercy of authoritarian regimes.
Signed:
Index on Censorship
Article 19
Humanists UK
06 Jun 24 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features
In India, the largest practical exercise in electoral politics the world has ever seen has just come to an end. Narendra Modi and his BJP party has been returned to power for an unprecedented third term, although without an outright majority. While there are many priorities facing the new administration, one of them will undoubtedly be modernising India’s outdated online regulatory framework.
The growth of internet access in India has been exponential. According to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), in 2000 5.5 million Indians were online; last year that number was 850 million. To look at India’s increasing economic and geopolitical clout is to also see a country willing to take on the tech giants to control India’s image online. The Indian government has not tiptoed around calling for platforms such as X and YouTube to remove content or accounts. According to the Washington Post, “records published by the Indian Parliament show that annual takedown requests for posts and accounts increased from 471 to 6,775 between 2014 and 2022, with those to Twitter soaring from 224 in 2018 to 3,417 in 2022.”
India’s online regulatory regime is over 20 years old and with the proliferation of online users and the emergence of new technologies, its age is starting to show. India is not alone in wrestling with this complex issue – just look at the Online Safety Act in the UK, the Digital Services Act (DSA) for the EU, as well as the ongoing discussions around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the USA. Following the election, the current government has confirmed its intention to update and expand the regulation of online platforms, through the ambitious Digital India Act (DIA).
The DIA is intended to plug the regulatory gap and while the need is apparent, the devil will be in the detail. MeitY has stated that while the internet has empowered citizens, it has “created challenges in the form of user harm; ambiguity in user rights; security; women & child safety; organised information wars, radicalisation and circulation of hate speech; misinformation and fake news; unfair trade practices”. The government has hosted two consultations on the Bill and they reveal the sheer scale of the Indian government’s vision, covering everything from online harms and content moderation to artificial intelligence and the digitalisation of the government.
Protections against liability for internet intermediaries hosting content on their platforms – often called Safe Harbour – has long defined the global discussions around online free expression and this is a live question hanging over the DIA. During an early consultation on the Bill held in the southern city of Bengaluru, Minister of State for Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar posed the question:
“If there is a need for safe harbour, who should be entitled to it? The whole logic of safe harbour is that platforms have absolutely no power or control over the content that some other consumer creates on the platform. But, in this day and age, is that really necessary? Is that safe harbour required?”
What would online speech policy look like without safe harbour provisions? It could herald in the near total privatisation of censorship, with platforms having to proactively and expansively police content to avoid liability. This is why the European safe harbour provisions included in the EU eCommerce Directive were left untouched during the negotiations around the DSA. With the Indian government highlighting the importance of the DIA in addressing the growing power of tech giants like Google and Meta, with Chandrasekhar stating in 2024 that “[t]he asymmetry needs to be legislated, or at the very least, regulated through rules of new legislation”, gifting tech companies power to decide what can and can’t be published online would surely represent an alarming recalibration that appears to run at odds with the Bill’s stated aims.
The changing approach to online expression is also evidenced in the slides used by the minister during the 2023 Bengaluru consultation. For instance, the internet of 2000 was defined as a “Space for good – allowing citizens to interact” and a “Source of Information and News”. But for MeitY, in 2023 it has curdled somewhat into a “Space for criminalities and illegalities” and a space defined by the “Proliferation of Hate Speech, Disinformation and Fake news.” This shift in perception also frames how the government identifies potential online harms. During the consultation, the minister stated that “[t]he idea of the Act is that what is currently legal but harmful is made illegal and harmful.” A number of harms were included in the minister’s presentation, highlighting everything from catfishing and doxxing, to the “weaponisation of disinformation in the name of free speech” and cyber-fraud tactics such as salami-slicing. This covers a universe of harms that each would require distinct and tailored responses and so questions remain as to how the DIA can adequately address all these factors, without adversely affecting internet users’ fundamental rights.
As a draft bill is yet to be published, there is no way of knowing what harms the DIA will contain. Without this, speculation has filled the vacuum. To illustrate this point, the Internet Freedom Foundation has compiled an expansive list of what the Bill could regulate collated solely from media coverage of the Bill from July 2022 until June 2023. This included everything from “apps that have addictive impact” and online gaming to deliberate misinformation and religious incitement material. What is also shrouded in darkness so far is how platforms or the state are expected to respond to these harms. As we have seen in the UK and across Europe, without clarity, full civil society engagement, and a robust rights framework, work to address online harms can significantly impact our right to free expression.
For now, the scope and scale of the government’s ambition can only be guessed at. For Index, the central question is, how can this be done while protecting the fundamental right of free expression, as outlined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and international human rights law? This is an issue of significant importance for everyone in India.
This is why Index on Censorship is kicking off a project to support Indian civil society engagement with the DIA to ensure it is informed by the experiences of internet users across the country, can respond to the learnings from other jurisdictions legislating on the same challenges and can adequately protect free expression. We will be engaging with key stakeholders prior to and during the consultation process to ensure that everyone’s right to speak out and speak up online, on whichever platform they choose, is protected.
If you are interested to learn more about this work please contact [email protected]
Last year, we published an issue of Index dedicated to issues related to free expression in India. Read it here.
16 Apr 24 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features
In January this year, when Raqib Hameed Naik received a notice from X (formerly Twitter) that Hindutva Watch was blocked on the platform by order of the country’s ruling Hindu–nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he was not surprised. The government had submitted more than 28 legal requests to X in the past two years, seeking removal of Watch’s posts. As well as the X account being blocked in India, the Hindutva Watch website was, and is, also inaccessible in the country.
“While shocking, it’s not surprising, considering Prime Minister Modi regime’s history of suppressing free press & critical voices,” Naik wrote on X on 16 January in reaction to the ban.
Naik, a journalist reporting on conflict and marginalisation of minorities, founded and runs US-based independent research project Hindutva Watch, which tracks hate crimes by right–wing Hindus against Muslims, Christians and members of the historically oppressed castes in India. The website of India Hate Lab, another initiative by Naik that is exclusively dedicated to tracking hate speech in India, has also been rendered inaccessible in the country.
Various law enforcement agencies have frequently attempted to erase Hindutva Watch and India Hate Lab’s documentation of hate crime and speech towards minorities, primarily on the pretext of violating India’s controversial Information Technology (IT) Act 2000, though the government never clarified which specific laws were violated by the two websites.
The IT Act grants authorities the power to block access to information under the guise of safeguarding India’s “sovereignty, integrity, and security”. In 2022, the country’s Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the Act which empowered the government to prosecute individuals for sharing “offensive” messages online. Various governments, irrespective of political affiliations, had misused the provision to detain ordinary civilians critical of the government.
Hailing from the conflict-ridden India-administered Jammu and Kashmir, Naik started working as a journalist in 2014. He said it was evident for him from the beginning of his career that the government was vindictive against journalists and media outlets who reported critically on them, especially from sensitive areas like Kashmir. The situation, he believes, is worse for journalists from minority communities.
“The assault on the pillars of free press, coupled with the anti–minority policies and generation of an atmosphere grounded in hate and violence towards minority communities, profoundly affected me, as a Kashmiri Muslim journalist,” he told Index.
Naik’s fears were not unfounded. Initially covering political conflict and human rights in Kashmir and later on religious minorities and Hindu nationalism in India, he was among the handful of journalists who was able to report on the revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy by the BJP in 2019 amidst a tight curfew and communication blockade, including internet shutdowns for several months in the Himalayan valley.
As Naik’s reporting on Kashmir’s unrest gained international recognition, it also landed him in trouble. He faced questioning from the country’s intelligence officers and frequent inquiries from the police about his whereabouts and work, putting pressure on his family.
“It’s pure harassment but also a debilitating feeling,” said Naik, who is currently in the USA, since fleeing India in 2020 as the death threats and harassment for his reporting ramped up.
“Four years have passed, and I haven’t been home since. The thought of being unable to go home indefinitely just breaks my heart,” he said. “But then, I have to gather strength because there are very few journalists left in the country to tell and humanise stories of the minorities.”
Initially running the two websites and their X accounts anonymously from Massachusetts in the USA, Naik created a unique and robust digital database of human rights abuses, which routinely occur from big cities to remote villages in what is considered the world’s largest democracy. Yet, such cases do not receive adequate mainstream press coverage in India. Interestingly, two news outlets from the country, Hindustan Times and IndiaSpend, made attempts to monitor hate crimes only to stop their operations in 2017 and 2019 respectively.
Modi’s tenure so far has been marred with an increased suppression of dissent, targeting critics such as journalists, activists, academics, lawmakers and minority communities in India. Shortly before Hindutva Watch and India Hate Lab were blocked, Modi presided over the consecration of the new Ram temple, constructed on the ruins of a historic Mughal–era mosque which was demolished by a mob in 1992. The ensuing riots took over 2,000 lives while the site remained a point of contention for over three decades.
According to IndiaSpend’s Citizen’s Religious Hate Crime Watch, a data–driven news platform, around 90% of religiously-motivated hate crimes that have occurred since 2009 did so after the BJP took power on a national level in 2014.
The scale of these hate crimes remains obscured. After 2017, the country’s national crime bureau stopped keeping a separate record on hate crimes or lynching. Naik’s project keeps track of such incidents in absence of any documentation by authorities or media in the country. Run by a small group of 12 volunteers spread across five countries, Naik’s project documents two to four hate events daily using video and picture evidence submitted by a network of Indian activists and citizens.
“Since 2021, we have documented and archived thousands of videos and stories on hate crimes and hate speeches,” Naik said. “Our efforts have led to actionable outcomes in states where law agencies were willing to take a stand against right–wing members involved in such activities.”
“What we have collected serves as the evidence for facilitating judicial intervention, particularly in cases related to hate speech,” he added.
According to the latest report released by India Hate Lab before it was blocked in India, nearly two anti–Muslim hate speech events took place every day in 2023 and around 75% of those occurred in states ruled by the BJP. Collating a total of 668 hate speech events, the report observed that the cases peaked between August and November in 2023 – the period of political campaigning and polling in four major states in the country.
In India, press freedom also took a severe plunge under Modi’s leadership and with people now heading to the polls, Naik worries that blocking of his websites could tighten the government’s grip on the information ecosystem in the country.
Despite the suspension, he remains undeterred in continuing his work. He says: “There is extreme fear. And the climate of fear may continue to stifle reporting. But I know there are journalists who won’t succumb or surrender. I see hope in them.”
Read more about how authorities are silencing their critics across borders in the upcoming issue of Index. For a 50% discounted subscription to our digital edition, visit our page on Exact Editions and use the code Spring24 here
