22 Jul 16 | Academic Freedom, Academic Freedom Letters, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, mobile
The University of Cape Town rescinded an invitation to journalist and editor Flemming Rose, who had been scheduled to deliver the annual TB Davie lecture on academic freedom in August. In 2005 Rose commissioned the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that sparked protests and riots across the world.
Regarding my thoughts on the matter and the arguments put forward as motivation for taking back the invitation I find three things important:
1. I find it disgraceful that the Vice-Chancellor Mr. Max Price puts the blame on me instead of taking responsibility for his decision. He is afraid that some people might react in certain ways to my presence. That’s not my responsibility. If they choose to act in a way that concerns the VC, it’s their decision, not mine. The VC has to hold them responsible for their actions, not me. It’s the heckler’s veto. Mr. Price talks about “the harm that unlimited freedom of expression could cause.” I don’t know any person including myself who is in favor of unlimited free speech, that’s a caricature of free speech activists. What I oppose is the kind of “I am in favor of free speech, but”-position that Mr. Price provides a classic example of. His approach to free speech would make it possible to ban any speech.
2. Mr. Price is misrepresenting my position. He writes: “Mr. Rose is regarded by many around the world as right wing, Islamophobic, someone whose statements have been deliberatively provocative, insulting and possibly amount to hate speech, and an editor of a publication that many believe took a bigoted view of freedom of expression.” He adds that I am defender of “selective blasphemy”. What are the sources for these accusations? An article from 2006 at the height of the cartoon crisis, when a lot of unchecked information and rumors were making the rounds, among them that I was working for Mossad, the KGB’s successor in Russia and the CIA. My guilt seems to be that I have met and interviewed Daniel Pipes. The other source is a review of my book The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech by a Danish professor who has been biased against me and Jyllands-Posten from the outset.
I find it strange that the VC uses Peter Hervik’s review as a source of authority. Hervik labels me a “radical rightwing activist” without defining what he means by that and even worse without quoting anything from what I have said and written. I am a classical liberal. I do not defend selective blasphemy, I defend the right to blasphemy as such. To provide you with an impression of his approach let me quote from the review. He writes about me:
“Not least his enormous urge to gather any news coverage from around the world in order to show that ‘I was right and that others were wrong’.”
Sounds a bit like a fanatic, or at least that’s the impression he wants to convey.
This is what I actually wrote:
“At first I wanted to document that I was right and others were wrong. But along the way, I found out that I needed to look inward, to reflect on my own story and background. Why was this debate so important to me? Why was I from the outset, almost, instinctively, able to identify the core issue… I am fully aware that other versions exist that are no less true than my own; in some cases they may be even more complete.”
“I do have strong opinions when it comes to certain things. But I am not a person who takes an instant stand on just anything. I am a natural skeptic. I ponder at length and lose myself in layers of meaning and the many sides of an issue, I don’t see that trait as a flaw: It is the condition of modern man and indeed the core strength of secular democracies, which are founded on the idea that there is no monopoly on truth. Doubt is the germ of curiosity and critical questioning, and its prerequisite is a strong sense of self, a courage that leaves room for debate.”
A bit different than Hervik’s version, right?
To me this looks like a deliberate distortion of I was trying to say in that paragraph. Disagreement is necessary and fine but we have to present the point of view of our opponents in a more or less fair way. Anyone who needs to misrepresent the point of view of his opponent usually has a bad case.
It’s really a sign of poor judgement and bad academic standards to disinvite me on the basis of what other people say about me, when I have published a book that covers my own story, which tells how my views on politics were formed and analyses the history of tolerance and free speech. The book is not only focusing on Islam. I write about the Russian Orthodox’ Church silencing of criticism, Hindu-nationalists attacks on an Indian Muslim artist and so on and so forth. Why use second-hand sources when you can read the primary source in English and make up your mind?
This doesn’t mean that I would favour banning a “radical right wing” speaker, whatever that means. I would defend such a speaker’s right to make his case. After all, that’s the way we learn to argue against points of views that we don’t like.
3. Mr. Price is also getting the facts wrong about Jyllands-Posten and its position. The newspaper published several cartoons ridiculing Jesus, even by Kurt Westergaard, the artist that did the cartoon of the Mohammad with a bomb in his turban. The Jesus cartoons that were refused were submitted by a freelancer not a staffer, so it was like refusing any other article or cartoon by a freelancer.
In my book (the Danish version) I have included some of those and other images. Apart from Westergaard’s I have added Serrano’s Piss Christ and an image by Jens Jørgen Thorsen, a Danish artist who in 1984 painted Jesus with an erection on a public building and cartoons from the Nazi Magazine Der Stürmer, George Grosz’ drawings of a Christ-like figure equipped with a gas mask on the cross next to a canon (World War I) and Manet’s Lunch on the Green Grass. All this to show examples of images that throughout history have caused controversy.
Contrary to what Mr. Price writes, Jyllands-Posten published antisemitic cartoons and cartoons mocking the Holocaust (a full page on 4 February, 2006 at the height of the cartoon crisis) that previously had been published in Arab newspapers. We, like most other Danish newspapers, published submissions to the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest as well. We did it, not because we support the views expressed in the cartoons (the same point goes for the Mohammed-cartoons) – publication does not mean endorsement. We did it in order for our readers to see what makes people laugh in the countries where many were so upset by the Mohammed cartoons.
Recently I have defended radical imams’ right to hate speech, and I have (in Danish) written favorably about a book by a socially conservative Norwegian Muslim (title: Is it possible to love the Koran and Norway at the same time?).
Also read:
Index on Censorship condemns decision to axe Flemming Rose as speaker on academic freedom
Dr Max Price, Vice-Chancellor of UCT, letter to the academic freedom committee
UCT Academic freedom committee response to Dr. Max Price
UCT statement: Withdrawal of invitation to speaker of TB Davie Academic Freedom Lecture
Kenan Malik: Academic freedom and academic cowardice
22 Jul 16 | Americas, mobile, News and features, United States
Although the USA is considered to have relatively generous freedoms of speech and the press protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, these freedoms have their limits. Many whistleblowers are not afforded protection in the USA and are subjected to lengthy prison terms after disclosing classified information to the public.
Chelsea Manning’s suicide attempt on 5 July, six years into her 35-year sentence, highlights the severity the USA practices when sentencing whistleblowers. Manning was responsible for the leaks of classified US military information to Wikileaks including videos, incident reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, information on detainees at Guantanamo and thousands of Department of State cables. She was sentenced on 21 August 2013 to 35 years at the maximum-security US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.
Manning’s case appears to be the rule, not the exception, in the USA.
Jeffrey Sterling
Considered to be a whistleblower by some, Jeffrey Sterling, who worked for the CIA from 1993 to 2002, was charged under the Espionage Act with mishandling national defense information in 2010. Sterling was sentenced to three and a half years in prison for his contributions to New York Times journalist James Risen’s book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, which detailed the failed CIA Operation Merlin that may have inadvertently aided the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Risen was subpoenaed twice to testify in the case United States v Sterling but refused, resulting in a seven-year legal battle.
On 11 May 2015, at Sterling’s sentencing, judge Leonie Brinkema stated that although she was moved by his professional history, she wanted to send a message to other whistleblowers of the “price to be paid” when revealing government secrets.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim
Stephen Kim is a former US Department of State contractor who, on 11 June 2009, spoke to Fox News reporter James Rosen about North Korean plans for a nuclear bomb test. Kim allegedly sought Rosen out after becoming frustrated that there was little being done in the Department of State in response to the threats of nuclear tests in North Korea, tests that were ultimately carried out. Fox News published Rosen’s article, North Korea Intends to Match U.N. Resolution With New Nuclear Test, which resulted in an FBI investigation. Kim subsequently pleaded guilty to a single felony count of unauthorised disclosure of national defense information and was sentenced to 13 months in prison on 7 February 2014.
John Kiriakou
John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, was charged with disclosing information to journalists on several occasions, including revealing the use of torture on Abu Zubaydah and connecting a covert operative to a specific undercover operation. Kiriakou accepted a plea bargain that spared the journalists he had spoken with from having to testify by pleading guilty to one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
On 28 February 2013, Kiriakou began serving his 30-month sentence. He has stated that his case was more about punishment for exposing torture than leaking information and that he would “do it all over again”.
Edward Snowden
Although the most famous whistleblower on this list has not been tried and sentenced, Edward Snowden could face up to 30 years in prison for his multiple felony charges under the World War I-era Espionage Act. Snowden was charged on 14 June 2013 for his role in leaking classified information from the National Security Agency, notably a global surveillance initiative.
Snowden has expressed a willingness to go to prison for his actions but refuses to be used as a “deterrent to people trying to do the right thing in difficult situations” as so many whistleblowers often are.
Barrett Brown
The political climate in the US has become so hostile towards leaks that even journalists can face repercussions for their involvement with whistleblowers. American journalist and essayist Barrett Brown’s case became well-known after he was arrested for copying and pasting a hyperlink to millions of leaked emails from Stratfor, an American private intelligence company, from one chat room to another. The leak itself had been orchestrated by Jeremy Hammond, who is serving 10 years in prison for his participation, and did not involve Brown. Brown faced a sentence of up to 102 years in prison, once again for sharing a hyperlink, before the 12 counts of aggravated identity theft and trafficking in stolen data charges were dropped in 2013.
Although the dismissal of these charges was heralded as a victory for press freedom, Brown was still convicted of two counts of being an accessory after the fact and obstructing the execution of a search warrant. On 22 January 2015, Brown was sentenced to 63 months in prison and ordered to pay $890,250 in fines and restitution to Stratfor.
05 Jul 16 | Europe and Central Asia, Events
How can we protect a free media and space for civil society? What are the growing restrictions facing journalists? How can investigative journalism fight corruption?
As the space for free media in Europe is threatened, the importance of an independent media must be emphasised. A free and independent media plays a vital role in exposing corruption and holding governments and the corporate world accountable.
Join Transparency International EU for a conference on “The Role of Investigative Journalism and a Free Media in Fighting Corruption” including:
Restrictions on Media and the Press in the European Union, 3.45pm-4.45pm
- Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive, Index on Censorship
- Andras Peltho, founder/editor, Direckt 36 Hungary
- Dirk Voorhoof, board member, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
Investigating Corruption, 4.45pm-5.45pm
- Miranda Patrucic, editor, Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project
- Kristoff Clerix, Knack Magazine (ICIJ member who has worked on LuxLeaks, SwissLeaks and Panama Papers)
When: 2-6pm, 14 July
Where: Residence Palace, Rue de la Loi 155, Brussels
Tickets: To attend this event, register here. To apply for a travel grant contact [email protected]
22 Jun 16 | News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
From left, Ahmet Nesin (journalist and author), Şebnem Korur Fincancı (President of Turkey Human Rights Foundation) and Erol Önderoğlu (journalist at Bianet and RSF Turkey correspondent). (Photo: © Bianet)
I have known Erol Önderoğlu for ages. This gentle soul has been monitoring the ever-volatile state of Turkish journalism more regularly than anybody else. His memory, as the national representative of the Reporters Without Borders, has been a prime source of reference for what we ought to know about the state of media freedom and independence.
On 20 June, perhaps not so surprisingly, we all witnessed Erol being sent to pre-trial detention, taken out of the courtroom in Istanbul in handcuffs.
Charge? “Terrorist propaganda.” Why? Erol was subjected to a legal investigation together with two prominent intellectuals, author Ahmet Nesin, and Prof Şebnem Korur Fincanci – who is the chairwoman of the Turkish Human Rights Foundation – because they had joined a so-called solidarity vigil, as an “editor for a day”, at the pro-Kurdish Özgür Gündem daily, which has has been under immense pressure lately.
This vigil had assembled, since 3 May, more than 40 intellectuals, 37 of whom have now been probed for the same charges. One can now only imagine the magnitude of a crackdown underway if the courts copy-paste detention decisions to all of them, which is not that unlikely.
Journalism has, without the slightest doubt, become the most risky and endangered profession in Turkey. Journalism is essential to any democracy. It’s demise will mean the end of democracy.
Turkey is now a country — paradoxically a negotiating partner with the EU on membership — where journalism is criminalised, where its exercise equates to taking a walk on a legal, political and social minefield.
“May God bless the hands of all those who beat these so-called journalists” tweeted Sait Turgut, a top local figure of AKP in Midyat, where a bomb attack on 8 June by the PKK had claimed 5 lives and left more than 50 people wounded.
Three journalists – Hatice Kamer, Mahmut Bozarslan and Sertaç Kayar – had come to town to cover the event. Soon they had found themselves surrounded by a mob and barely survived a lynch attempt.
Most recently, Can Erzincan TV, a liberal-independent channel with tiny financial resources but a strong critical content, was told by the board of TurkSat that it will be dropped from the service due to “terrorist propaganda”. Why? Because some of the commentators, who are allowed to express their opinions, are perceived as affiliated with the Gülen Movement, which has been declared a terrorist organisation by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
It is commonplace for AKP officials from top down demonise journalists this way. Harrassment, censorship, criminal charges and arrests are now routine.
Detention of the three top human rights figures, the event in Midyat or the case of Can Erzincan TV are only snapshots of an ongoing oppression mainly aimed at exterminating the fourth estate as we know it. According to Mapping Media Freedom, there have been over 60 verified violations of press freedom since 1 January 2016.
The lethal cycle to our profession approaches its completion.
While journalists in Turkey – be they Turkish, Kurdish or foreign – feel less and less secure, the absence of truthful, accurate, critical reporting has become a norm. Covering stories such as the ”Panama Papers” leak — which includes hundreds of Turkish business people, many of whom have ties with the AKP government — or the emerging corruption case of Reza Zarrab — an Iranian businessman who was closely connected with the top echelons of the AKP — seems unthinkable due to dense self-censorship.
Demonisation of the Kurdish Political Movement and the restrictions in the south eastern region has made it an extreme challenge to report objectively on the tragic events unfolding in the mainly Kurdish provinces which have forced, according to Amnesty International, around 500,000 to leave their homes.
Journalism in Turkey now means being compromised in the newsrooms, facing jail sentences for reportage or commentary, living under constant threat of being fired, operating under threats and harassment. A noble profession has turned into a curse.
In the case of Turkey, fewer and fewer people are left with any doubt about the concentration of power. It’s in the hands of a single person who claims supremacy before all state institutions. The state of its media is now one without any editorial independence and diversity of thought.
President Erdoğan, copying like-minded leaders such as Fujimori, Chavez, Maduro, Aliyev and, especially, Putin, did actually much better than those.
His dismay with critical journalism surfaced fully from 2010 on, when he was left unchecked at the top of his party, alienating other founding fathers like Abdullah Gül, Ali Babacan and others who did not have an issue with a diverse press.
Soon it turned into contempt, hatred, grudge and revenge.
He obviously thought that a series of election victories gave him legitimacy to launch a full-scale power grab that necessitated capturing control of the large-scale media outlets.
His multi-layered media strategy began with Gezi Park protests in 2013 and fully exposed his autocratic intentions.
While his loyal media groups helped polarise the society, Erdoğan stiffly micro-managed the media moguls with a non-AKP background — whose existence depended on lucrative public contracts — to exert constant self-censorship in their news outlets, which due to their greed they willingly did.
This pattern proved to be successful. Newsrooms abandoned all critical content. What’s more, sackings and removals of dignified journalists peaked en masse, amounting now to approximately 4,000.
By the end of 2014, Erdoğan had conquered the bulk of the critical media.
Since 2015 there has been more drama. The attacks against the remaining part of the critical media escalated in three ways: intimidation, seizure and pressure of pro-Kurdish outlets.
Doğan group, the largest in the sector, was intimidated by pro-AKP vandalism last summer and brought to its knees by legal processes on alleged “organized crime” charges involving its boss.
As a result the journalism sector has had its teeth pulled out.
Meanwhile, police raided and seized the critical and influential Koza-Ipek and Zaman media groups, within the last 8 months, terminating some of its outlets, turning some others pro-government overnight and, after appointing trustees, firing more than 1,500 journalists.
Kurdish media, at the same time, became a prime target as the conflict grew and more and more Kurdish journalists found themselves in jail.
With up to 90% of a genetically modified media directly or indirectly under the control Erdoğan and in service of his drive for more power, decent journalism is left to a couple of minor TV channels and a handful newspapers with extremely low circulations.
With 32 journalists in prison and its fall in international press freedom indexes continuing to new all-time lows, Turkey’s public has been stripped of its right to know and cut off from its right to debate.
Journalism gagged means not only an end to the country’s democratic transition, but also all bridges of communication with its allies collapsing into darkness.
A version of this article originally appeared in Süddeutsche Zeitung. It is posted here with the permission of the author.
Turkey Uncensored is an Index on Censorship project to publish a series of articles from censored Turkish writers, artists and translators.
