12 Jun 14 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Draw the Line, Russia
Protests against increase in public transportation costs in Rio de Janeiro on 13 February (Image: Mauricio Fidalgo/Demotix)
The World Cup — arguably the biggest international event on the planet — is upon us once more. But in the past year, Brazilians have been using their rights to free expression to organise large-scale protests to show their dissatisfaction with hosting the tournament. Meanwhile, revelations of serious human rights violations and corruption related to 2022 host Qatar have emerged. This year, human rights are sharing the spotlight with the beautiful game and its stars.
This isn’t the first time politics and sports have mixed. Just think of the Formula 1 Grand Prix races hosted in Gulf kingdom Bahrain, where authorities have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters; or the 2008 Olympics organised by the Chinese communist regime, which employs two million people to help monitor web activity; or the 1978 World Cup held in then-military dictatorship Argentina. More recently, Vladimir Putin’s Russia hosted the Winter Olympics (and will host the 2018 World Cup) not long after implementing homophobic legislation targeting so-called “gay propaganda”, while Belarus, which has been ruled by dictator Alexander Lukashenko since 1994, organised the 2014 Ice Hockey World Championship. Azerbaijan, with its, according to the latest figures, 142 political prisoners, is playing host to the inaugural European Games in 2015.
That’s without even considering the many human rights abuses perpetrated by authorities in participating countries.
The question that often comes up when these huge, prestigious events roll around, is how do we respond to the countries that repress their citizen’s free expression? Should we boycott? Should we use the attention to raise our voice on human rights abuses? Should we engage or ignore? Get involved the discussion using the hashtag #IndexDrawtheLine and tell us — where do you draw the line?
This article was published on June 12, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
06 Jun 14 | Azerbaijan News, Digital Freedom, News and features
(Image: Bplanet/Shutterstock)
Croatia’s new criminal code has introduced “humiliation” as an offence — and it is already being put to use. Slavica Lukić, a journalist with newspaper Jutarnji list is likely to end up in court for writing that the Dean of the Faculty of Law in Osijek accepted a bribe. As Index reported earlier this week, via its censorship mapping tool mediafreedom.ushahidi.com: “For the court, it is of little importance that the information is correct – it is enough for the principal to state that he felt humbled by the publication of the news.”
These kinds of laws exist across the world, especially under the guise of protecting against insult. The problem, however, is that such laws often exist for the benefit of leaders and politicians. And even when they are more general, they can be very easily manipulated by those in positions of power to shut down and punish criticism. Below are some recent cases where just this has happened.
Tajikistan
On 4 June this year, security forces in Tajikistan detained a 30-year-old man on charges of “insulting” the country’s president. According to local press, he was arrested after posting “slanderous” images and texts on Facebook.
Iran
Eight people were jailed in Iran in May, on charges including blasphemy and insulting the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Facebook. They also were variously found guilty of propaganda against the ruling system and spreading lies.
India
Also in May this year, Goa man Devu Chodankar was investigated by police for posting criticism of new Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Facebook. The incident was reported the police someone close to Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under several different pieces of legislation. One makes it s “a punishable offence to send messages that are offensive, false or created for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience”.
Swaziland
Human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko and journalist and editor Bheki Makhubu were arrested in March this year, and face charges of “scandalising the judiciary” and “contempt of court”. The charges are based on two articles, written by Maseko and Makhubu and published in the independent magazine the Nation, which strongly criticised Swaziland’s Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi, levels of corruption and the lack of impartiality in the country’s judicial system.
Venezuela
In February this year, Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez was arrested on charges of inciting violence in the country’s ongoing anti-government protests. Human Rights Watch Americas Director Jose Miguel Vivanco said at the time that the government of President Nicholas Maduro had made no valid case against Lopez and merely justified his imprisonment through “insults and conspiracy theories.”
Zimbabwe
Student Honest Makasi was in November 2013 charged with insulting President Robert Mugabe. He allegedly called the president “a dog” and accused him of “failing to do what he promised during campaigns” and lying to the people. He appeared in court around the same time the country’s constitutional court criticised continued use of insult laws. And Makasi is not the only one to find himself in this position — since 2010, over 70 Zimbabweans have been charged for “undermining” the authority of the president.
Egypt
In March 2013, Egypt’s public prosecutor, appointed by former President Mohamed Morsi, issued an arrest warrant for famous TV host and comedian Bassem Youssef, among others. The charges included “insulting Islam” and “belittling” the later ousted Morsi. The country’s regime might have changed since this incident, but Egyptian authorities’ chilling effect on free expression remains — Youssef recently announced the end of his wildly popular satire show.
Azerbaijan
A recent defamation law imposes hefty fines and prison sentences for anyone convicted of online slander or insults in Azerbaijan. In August 2013, a court prosecuted a former bank employee who had criticised the bank on Facebook. He was found guilty of libel and sentenced to 1-year public work, with 20% of his monthly salary also withheld.
Malawi
In July 2013, a man was convicted and ordered to pay a fine or face nine month in prison, for calling Malawi’s President Joyce Banda “stupid” and a “failure”. Angry that his request for a new passport was denied by the department of immigration, Japhet Chirwa “blamed the government’s bureaucratic red tape on the ‘stupidity and failure’ of President Banda”. He was arrested shortly after.
Poland
While the penalties were softened somewhat in a 2009 amendment to the criminal code, libel remains a criminal offence in Poland. In September 2012, the creator of Antykomor.pl, a website satirising President Bronisław Komorowski, was “sentenced to 15 months of restricted liberty and 600 hours of community service for defaming the president”.
This article was published on June 6, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
30 May 14 | News and features, Politics and Society, United Nations
In a discretion well known to diplomatic circles, the United Nations so-called Committee on NGOs is meeting in New York this week. It is to select which NGOs fit the institution. The 19-member body’s aim could be to ensure a high-level and quality participation of independent NGOs to the United Nations – it is instead the 21st century censorship bureau.
Any governmental institution has to establish mechanisms by which participation of external organisations and lobbyists is regulated. The role of the Committee on NGOs of the United Nations is to look into applications of NGOs from all around the world. It is supposed to assess, case by case, whether the applicant NGO respects the Charter of the United Nations and abides by basic principles such as non-violence and democracy.
We know how much civil society has contributed to the development of the United Nations as such, and has been a force in pushing States to adopt a set of internationally binding standards to protect human rights and so many other issues. Access to the international bodies allowed NGOs to have a direct and formal input into the discussions. Unlike lobbyists at parliaments, representatives of NGOs can officially participate in the debates at the United Nations Human Rights Council. No need to be invited by an official or find strategies to get in contact with decision-makers. The access guaranteed to independent civil society, representing values and principles, not financial interests, is at the very core of the United Nations and a consequence of the organisation recognising it would be nothing if it had to count only on States to build itself and its standards up.
Some of those States are indeed the ones most willing to silence critical NGOs.
Throughout the globe, NGOs are fighting more and more for their own space in society, for their ability to work and defend victims of human rights violations. The work used to be all about those who loose their lives working as slaves, those who end up behind bars because of their beliefs, their engagement or their sexuality, those who loose their houses because from a day to another a ruler wants the land or a country believes it has the absolute right over it. Human rights defenders used to give body and soul to those people, and to so many others. Now, we need to include that we need to challenge governments shrinking the ability of those fighting for rights – human rights defenders need more and more to fight for themselves and their own space.
The United Nations should be an arena of dialogue aspiring to protect victims and promote peace. To do so, various voices are needed at the table. However, those who shrink space for civil society at home certainly do not want to see them at the table in New York or Geneva, or at any other international forum for that matter.
Along with inter alia Cuba, Pakistan and Venezuela, China and Russia are long-standing members of the Committee of NGOs. Both can proudly wear a label of censorship. Following President Vladimir Putin’s third election in March 2012, the country is undergoing a wave a repression and has adopted some of the most draconian laws against independent civil society. Dissenting with the Chinese regime is at the cost of one’s life, safety and integrity. The same behaviour is being observed by China and Russia at the Committee on NGOs – the institution is its tool to repress those the countries’ leadership do not agree with. And the consequences are grave. As world powers and permanent members of the Security Council, the two countries are already immune to critics within the UN on their rights record. The repression against political activists, human rights defenders and their NGOs, should have brought both countries to the centre of debates at the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. It did not because they effectively prevents critics from getting into the room. Other States are now following the same strategy; one cannot believe that Azerbaijan, which will become a member of the Committee in 2015, shows a genuine interest in NGO participation in the international debate when it jails those who want to monitor the public life in Azerbaijan, such as the leader of the country’s only independent election monitoring group Anar Mammadli.
Member States of the Eastern European Group in the United Nations (the geographical groups are one of the legacies of the post world war era) should have run against Azerbaijan and Russia. Many of those Eastern Europe States are within the European Union. The Union was a step behind others by omitting to see that its willingness to promote rights and democracy in its direct neighbourhood will be affected by leaving a censorship tool in the hands of people who enjoy it.
Western countries have on their side left Turkey run unopposed for the Committee. The country has singled itself out recently, from all members of the Western European and Others Group, in blocking access to social media, especially Twitter. The single fact that a leader believes the power held in his hands allows him to block freedom of expression on the media of one’s choice should imply that that leader’s government is not to participate in the selection of civil society organisations participating in shaping the international arena.
Within the protected compound of the United Nations in Manhattan, the Committee on NGOs is this week looking into accepting those NGOs nobody will oppose, whilst blocking those NGOs publicly and forcefully engaging for human rights, including rights of people belonging to minorities or espousing minority beliefs. States should stand up for the space for critical NGOs. They might have the numbers and if they do not they are on the honourable side trying to support those NGOs that deserve to be at the United Nations. There is no shame in losing against censors – there is one in not trying to oppose them.
This article was posted on May 30, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
09 May 14 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, Bahrain, China, News and features, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom
Made in Britain? Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) called for the immediate suspension of the use of excessive, indiscriminate and systematic use of tear gas against civilian protesters and densely populated Shia neighbourhoods in Bahrain (Image: Iman Redha/Demotix)
The Arab Spring has not stopped Britain from helping crush free expression and freedom of assembly by selling crowd control gear to authoritarian states including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
Analysis of newly-published data on export licences approved by the UK government have revealed ministers backed over £4 million of tear gas, crowd control ammunition and CS hand grenade sales over the last two years to Saudi Arabia – one of the most repressive states in the world.
The British government also allowed crowd control ammunition to be sold to Malaysia and Oman, as well as tear gas to Hong Kong and Thailand.
It gave the green light to anti-riot and ballistic shields to four authoritarian regimes listed by the Economist Democratic Index: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Azerbaijan, as well as Saudi Arabia.
Its only refusal for an export licence in 2013 for equipment which could be used to suppress internal dissent was for an order of CS hand grenades and ‘tear gas/irritant ammunition’ to Turkey.
A lack of transparency across the secretive arms sector makes it difficult to establish which companies are providing the arms – or how the country in question intends to use them.
But the Geneva Convention forbids the military use of all gas weapons, meaning the UK government would have assumed the tear gas was for use against civilian protesters.
Brief explanatory notes included in the export licences data suggest all those mentioned above are primarily for use against domestic populations.
The notes typically state the licence is granted “for armed forces end use” or “for testing and evaluation by a government / military end user”.
The only exception is the note for a sizeable order of anti-protest equipment for Brazil, which makes clear the export licence is granted for “armed forces end users not involved in crowd control / public security”.
Further evidence has emerged that Britain’s leading arms firm, BAE, has signed a £360 million contract with an unnamed Middle Eastern country for the upgrade of armoured personnel carriers whose primary use is against protesters.
Industry insiders believe the improvements are being made in Saudi Arabia to a stockpile of the vehicles left in the country by the United States military.
BAE’s chairman Sir Roger Carr said contractual commitments prevented him from commenting at the defence giant’s annual general meeting in Farnborough yesterday.
He faced heckling and hissing from vocal critics in the audience who had infiltrated the two-hour question-and-answer session, but insisted BAE was “helping to preserve world peace” and that the company “are not undermining the broader international rules” of the arms trade.
Speaking afterwards, however, a member of BAE’s board suggested the “natural place for these decisions is with government” rather than the company.
“I’m not abrogating our moral responsibility,” he said, “but it’s right that the burden of these difficult decisions is on the government because, in the UK at least, this is an elected democracy.”
Britain’s parliament, at least, has proved reluctant to provide a critical voice on the UK’s arms trade.
Opponents had alleged Saudi Arabian troops which intervened to crush the Arab Spring in Bahrain had received British military training. A recent report from MPs accepted the Foreign Office’s rejection of British complicity, with ministers arguing none of the training had taken place “in a repressive way”.
The Commons’ foreign affairs committee did, however, call on the government to “adhere strictly to its existing policy to ensure that defence equipment sold by UK firms are not used for human rights abuses or internal repression”.
Its request for the government to provide further evidence that it is doing so in practice did not meet with a positive response.
Officials said the risk that export licence criteria might be broken is “factored into” the original decision to grant the licence.
The Foreign Office stated: “There are rigorous pre-licence checks and, for open licences, compliance audits at the exporters’ premises in the UK. We will continue to scrutinise carefully all arms sales to Saudi Arabia.”
Many believe the current export licence regime is not fit for purpose, however. In 2013 the UK approved military licences to a total of 31 authoritarian regimes including Russia, China, Qatar and Kuwait.
“BAE couldn’t sell the weapons they do to these countries without the support of the UK government,” Andrew Smith of the Campaign Against The Arms Trade said.
“The UK government can stop any of these exports at any time but is choosing not to because it’s putting arms company profits ahead of human rights.”
He suggested the government’s decision to exclude Bahrain from its list of ‘countries of concern’ on human rights was “politically motivated”.
And he warned arms sales went beyond small-scale arms and ammunition to include much bigger purchases like fighter jets.
“The reason the Saudis buy from Britain is not just because Britain is willing to sell arms,” Smith added, “but also because it comes with political support and the endorsement and silence of the British government.”
This article was posted on May 9, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
