08 Jul 21 | Croatia, Monaco, News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Whistleblower Jonathan Taylor
We are delighted to announce that on Wednesday 7 July 2021, Croatian Justice Minister Ivan Malenica formally rejected the request by Monaco to extradite UK whistleblower Jonathan Taylor. Jonathan Taylor’s Support Group extends its gratitude to the Minister for taking the right decision.
The move comes following sustained calls for the past 11 months from human rights and civil liberties campaigners across Europe – and UK MPs – for his immediate release and safe return home. Legal experts backing the release of Jonathan Taylor said there was no proper legal basis for Monaco to seek Mr. Taylor’s extradition and the process was retaliatory in nature. Lawyers acting on behalf of Jonathan Taylor argued that it constituted an abuse of process.
Jonathan Taylor was arrested whilst on a family holiday in Croatia last July, and has been restrained there since. He has been isolated, away from his family, and unable to support himself or his family, all of which have taken an extreme toll on his mental wellbeing.
A former in-house lawyer for oil firm SBM Offshore based in Monaco, Jonathan Taylor blew the whistle in 2013 on a massive bribery scheme. Jonathan’s whistleblowing disclosures led to SBM Offshore paying over $800 million in fines in the US, Netherlands and Brazil and investigations which led to successful prosecutions of two former CEOs for fraud-related offences.
Yet nine years later, he was arrested on a questionable Interpol Red Notice whilst on holiday, and wanted for questioning in Monaco over allegations made by his former employer over his settlement. The Red Notice was withdrawn by Monaco last December on the eve of Interpol making a determination on its validity. Jonathan denies wrongdoing and his lawyers have long argued there is no legal basis for extraditing him for questioning as he is neither charged nor convicted of any offences.
“I am of course elated that justice has finally prevailed and I am appreciative that Minister of Justice Ivan Malenica was able to pay regard to the salient legal arguments of my lawyers that were seemingly overlooked by the Courts in making his decision to reject Monaco’s flawed attempt at extraditing me,” states Jonathan Taylor.
“Special thanks go to all my supporters in Europe, overseas and in Croatia who somehow kept me sane in my year of need! Be assured that I remain resolute and proud of exposing serious wrongdoing at SBM Offshore and I will never be intimidated by the corrupt and those that shamefully seek retaliation against me for exposing them. I continue to stand ready to assist the Monaco Prosecutor in the event that a decision is made to pursue those responsible for SBM Offshore’s illicit business practices instead of me.”
We agree with Jonathan. The Minister of Justice of Croatia, Ivan Malenica, carefully considered the position of Jonathan Taylor as a whistleblower and a protected witness. His decision in this case has wider implications for the rule of law in Europe: it is a victory for the public’s right to know about wrongdoing by protecting the messengers of that information. Whistleblowers play a vital role in Europe’s fight against global corruption. Croatia has demonstrated its commitment to the rule of law and to the protection of whistleblowers.
We now call on Monaco to drop any further proceedings against Jonathan Taylor and to focus on the actions of SBM Offshore as a proper target for their investigations.
We wish Jonathan a safe return to the UK where he can begin to rebuild his life.
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
Martin Bright, Editor, Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
Protect (United Kingdom)
Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers (United Kingdom)
Centre for Free Expression (Canada)
Free Press Unlimited
The Government Accountability Project (USA)
ARTICLE 19
The Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF)
Transparency International EU
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation (Malta)
Pištaljka (Serbia)
Blueprint for Free Speech (Germany and Australia)
The Signals Network (USA/France)
Transparency International – Bulgaria
Transparency International Italy
SpeakOut SpeakUp Ltd
European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions (EUROMIL)
Transparency International Secretariat
Access Info Europe
GlobaLeaks
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Eurocadres – Council of European Professional & Managerial Staff
Professor David Lewis, Middlesex University (UK)
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
Sherpa (France)
WhistleblowersUK
Baroness Kramer, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing (UK)
Mary Robinson MP, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing (UK)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Jul 21 | Algeria, Awards, Brazil, Burma, Djibouti, Egypt, Fellowship 2021, Kyrgyzstan, News and features, Nicaragua, Niger, Press Releases, Russia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Index on Censorship has today (5 July) revealed the shortlisted candidates for the charity’s 2021 Freedom of Expression Awards. The winners will be announced at the annual Freedom of Expression Awards Gala on 12 September 2021, and this year’s awards are particularly significant as the charity marks its fiftieth year defending freedom of expression around the globe.
Index on Censorship chief executive Ruth Smeeth said:
“As Index begins to mark its 50th birthday it’s clear that the battle to guarantee free expression and free expression around the globe has never been more relevant. As ever we are in awe of the immense bravery of our award nominees as they stand firm, demanding their rights under repressive regimes. They are inspirational and it is our privilege to help tell their stories.”
The Freedom of Expression Awards, which were first held in 2000, celebrate individuals or groups who have had a significant impact fighting censorship anywhere in the world. Index on Censorship believes that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution, and aim to raise awareness about threats to free expression and the importance of free speech.
Trevor Philips, Chair of the Index on Censorship Board of Trustees says:
“It’s been half a century since Index declared itself a voice for the persecuted. Today, the opponents of freedom are more numerous and more determined than ever to suppress opponents of the powerful. There is more need than ever to campaign for a diversity of voices to be heard. Our awards are just one candle in the growing gale of repression, and it is humbling to be able to back those who keep the flame of free expression alight.”
Awards will be presented in three categories: campaigning, arts, and journalism. This year’s panel of judges includes Afghan-born Pakistani poet and writer Fatima Bhutto, renowned sculptor Anish Kapoor, and feminist and LGBT activist and academic Ailbhe Smyth.
The shortlisted candidates for the Art award include Russian feminist performance artist Daria Apakhonchich, Brazilian film director Émerson Maranhão and Tatyana Zelenskaya, who is an illustrator based in Kyrgyzstan.
The Campaigning shortlist features feminist blogger and podcaster Nandar from Myanmar, Algerian human rights defender and LGBTQ activist Anouar Rahmani, and imprisoned Egyptian human rights activist Abdelrahman “Moka” Tarek.
Finally, the shortlisted candidates for the Journalism award include human rights activist and journalist Kadar Abdi Ibrahim from Djibouti, co-owner of the Nicaraguan independent media outlet 100% Noticias, Veronica Chavez, and Nigerien blogger Samira Sabou who was arrested in 2020 and charged with defamation under a restrictive 2019 cybercrime law.
Art
Daria Apakhonchich
Daria Apakhonchich is a performance artist from Russia, who focuses mainly on women’s rights and artistic freedom. Among other things, she has participated in a performance art piece called ‘Vulva Ballet’ and designed an artistic lament for Anastasia Yeshchenko, who was murdered by her partner in 2019. In December 2020, Apakhonchich became one of the first artists labelled a ‘foreign agent’ by Russian authorities. She was arrested in January 2021 and is now required to add a disclaimer to all social media posts identifying her as a foreign agent.
Émerson Maranhão
Émerson Maranhão is a film director from Brazil, who focuses mainly on LGBTQ+ visibility. His documentary Those Two (2018) follows the lives of two trans men. In 2019 President Jair Bolsonaro moved to cancel funding for movies with LGBTQ+ themes. Bolsonaro explicitly referred to Maranháo’s screenplay Transversais when defending the move. Funding was later reinstated, but members of the LGBT community and their allies continue to face discrimination in Brazil.
Tatyana Zelenskaya
Tatyana Zelenskaya is an illustrator from Kyrgyzstan, working on freedom of expression and women’s rights projects. Zelenskaya has found inspiration for her work in the waves of anti-government protests that have recently erupted across Russia and Kyrgyzstan. In 2020, she created the artwork for a narrative video game called Swallows: Spring in Bishkek, which features a woman who helps her friend that was abducted and forced into an unwanted marriage. The game was downloaded more than 70,000 times in its first month. Its purpose is to break the silence around the issue of bride-kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan, with the aim of preventing them altogether.
Journalism
Kadar Abdi Ibrahim
Kadar Abdi Ibrahim is a human rights activist and journalist from Djibouti. As an outspoken human rights activist, journalist and blogger, Abdi Ibrahim has been a frequent target of the regime. Kadar Abdi served as co-director and chief editor of L’Aurore, Djibouti’s only privately-owned media outlet, before it was banned in 2016. In April 2018, after returning from Geneva, where he carried out advocacy activities in preparation for Djibouti’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), intelligence services raided Kadar Abdi’s house and confiscated his passport. He has been unable to leave the country since then. In March 2020, he was named ‘Human Rights Defender of the Month’ by Defend the Defenders.
Verónica Chávez
Verónica Chávez is the co-owner of 100% Noticias, an online Nicaraguan media outlet dedicated to providing critical journalism. In 2018, police raided the offices of 100% Noticias and arrested Chávez, her husband journalist Miguel Mora and news director Lucia Pineda. Chávez was released, but Mora and Pineda were charged and imprisoned for a year. Despite the intense repression, Chávez continued to run 100% Noticias during that time. In October 2020, Chávez was violently attacked by members of paramilitary groups close to the government, and was left in intensive care. She subsequently saw an outpouring of support, including from the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which condemned the attack.
Samira Sabou
Samira Sabou is a Nigerien journalist, blogger and president of the Niger Bloggers for Active Citizenship Association (ABCA). In June 2020, Sabou was arrested and charged with defamation under the restrictive 2019 cybercrime law in connection with a comment on her Facebook post highlighting corruption. She spent over a month in detention. Through her work with ABCA, she conducts training sessions on disseminating information on social media based on journalistic ethics. The aim is to give bloggers the means to avoid jail time. Sabou is also active in promoting girls’ and women’s right to freedom of expression.
Campaigning
Nandar
Nandar is a feminist advocate, translator, storyteller from Myanmar. She is the creator of two podcasts: Feminist Talks and G-Taw Zagar Wyne. She founded the Purple Feminists Group and co-directed a production of The Vagina Monologues in Yangon. Building upon her experience as a woman in Myanmar, Nandar now uses her podcasts to tackle taboo topics in the country such as menstruation and abortion. In 2020, Nandar was named on the BBC’s list of 100 most influential and inspirational women around the world. She continues to speak up for justice and equality both from personal and political spheres.
Anouar Rahmani
Anouar Rahmani is a human rights defender, campaigner and writer from Algeria. He advocates for freedom of expression, the rights of minorities, and LGBTQ+ rights in Algeria. He is the first Algerian activist who has publicly called for same-sex marriage to be legally recognised in the country. Rahmani has received death threats and persecution due to his work. In 2017 he was questioned by police for “insulting God” in his novel the City of White Shadows. In 2020, Rahmani was convicted of “insulting state officials” in social media posts and ordered to pay a fine of 50,000 Dinar (£290). Rahmani believes that he is being criminalised in retaliation for his work defending freedom of expression and LGBTQ+ rights in Algeria.
Abdelrahman Tarek
Abdelrahman “Moka” Tarek is a human rights defender from Egypt, who focuses on defending the right to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners. Tarek has experienced frequent harassment from Egyptian authorities as a result of his work. He has spent longer periods of time in prison and has experienced torture and solitary confinement. Authorities have severely restricted his ability to communicate with his lawyer and family. Tarek was arrested again in September 2020 and in December 2020, a new case was brought against him on terrorism-related charges. Tarek began a hunger strike in protest of the terrorism charges. In January 2021, he was transferred to the prison hospital due to a deterioration in his health caused by the hunger strike. As of July 2021, he remains in prison.
Notes to editors:
For more information on the awards, please contact Leah Cross, [email protected]
For any press-related queries, please contact Luke Holland, [email protected][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Jun 21 | China, Hong Kong, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116952″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Ten months after the arrest of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and a massive raid at the group’s headquarters in August last year, the Hong Kong Police’s national security department launched a bigger strike against the Apple Daily, the group’s major publication, last Thursday (17 June).
They were alleged of colluding with foreign forces, one of the crimes under the national security law (NSL).
It marks the beginning of the end of the beleaguered newspaper founded by the controversial businessman in 1995. Hit by a government freeze on its bank accounts, the Next Digital’s board of directors said after an emergency meeting on Monday the newspaper will cease operation on Saturday unless the Government releases assets frozen.
Staff were allowed to leave immediately without giving prior notice. As this article went to press, its online operation was largely shut down.
The imminent demise of the media group, inaugurated with the launching of its flagship newspaper Apple Daily in 1995, will deal a body blow to the city’s press freedom.
More importantly, it signifies the deplorable failure of the Chinese Communist Party in honouring its promises to Hong Kong people and the world under the “one country, two systems” policy.
The troubled daily plunged into a deeper crisis after the Government launched the second, now fatal, strike on Thursday. Five top executives and editors were arrested. They were alleged of colluding with foreign forces by the publication of dozens of articles on their newspaper and online platform. Details of the articles have not been revealed.
On the same day, the Police’s national security department sent more than 500 officers to raid the newspaper’s headquarters. They took away more than 40 computers from the local news section.Security minister John Lee warned citizens and staff to “cut ties with these criminals,” referring to the newspaper.
The newspaper’s publisher, Cheung Kim-hung, and chief editor Ryan Law, were formally charged on Saturday. Their bail request was denied.
The other three executives were released on bail late Friday. Deputy publisher Chan Pui-man, who is one of them, has vowed to keep publishing.
Beginning in the early hours of Friday, readers snapped up copies of the newspaper to lend their support – and to say no to the authoritarian rule of the Government.
Half a million copies were sold like hot cakes. It was a scene reminiscent of the mass-buying in August following the arrest of Lai and the raid.
This “people power” will not be able to rescue the newspaper against the enormous power given to the national security organ under a law with almost zero checks and balances – even by the judiciary.
Invoking the NSL to take journalists to court for the first time, the case stoked fear of penalising journalists for “speech crime”, which is not uncommon in Communist-ruled China, but is rare in Hong Kong.
The confiscation of journalistic materials during the latest raid also set a damaging precedent. It will seriously shake public confidence in the protection of sources of information by reporters. Citizens will become more reluctant in talking to journalists, not to mention revealing sensitive information.
When the provisions of the NSL were announced about one year ago, journalists voiced their concerns about the profound ramifications on press freedom. That Lai and the Apple Daily have long been seen as a hostile force by the Government and Beijing is an open secret.
Ignited by an extradition bill in 2019, the prolonged months-long protest that was followed by foreign sanctions against top officials in the two governments has prompted the party leadership under Xi Jinping to harden their strategy towards dissenting voices in Hong Kong.
First came the NSL. Then a revamp of the election system. Democrats were arrested and prosecuted en masse. Dozens of them are either in jail after being convicted of other charges or are being held in custody.
On the media front, it is hardly surprising the government-run Radio Television Hong Kong and the Apple Daily have emerged as the immediate targets of a clampdown on press freedom.
The swiftness and ruthlessness of the use of harsh laws and powers have caught many by surprise.
Government officials have sought to allay fears among journalists by saying those who are engaged in “normal journalist work” have nothing to fear.
Speaking at a weekly press briefing on Tuesday, chief executive Carrie Lam rejected criticism that the move was a suppression of press freedom, but ducked the question “what is normal journalist work?”
“I think you are in a better position to answer that question,” she told reporters.
With the NSL taking effect nearly one year ago on 30 June 2020, Lam gave a clear message that they will not soften their approach in upholding national security, at least in the foreseeable future. “We won’t let this law be treated as if it doesn’t exist.”
With Apple Daily closing down, journalists have begun to ask “who’s next?”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 May 21 | Academic Freedom, News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Rt. Hon. Gavin Williamson MP Secretary of State for Education
Department for Education
20 Great Smith St
London, SW1P 3BT
Dear Secretary of State,
As organisations specialising in freedom of expression, we are writing to you to voice our significant concerns regarding the announcement of the Academic Freedom Bill in today’s Queen’s Speech.
There is an important discussion to be had around the state of freedom of expression in the UK’s universities. Hostile powers have felt increasingly emboldened to investigate and even sanction critical academics. Academics are having to both change their curricula and their method of teaching due to external pressures. Universities that fail to comply with government orders have had their sources of funding threatened.
All of the above threats, however, emanate from state powers – not from students. It is far from clear, therefore, that academic freedom will be strengthened by imposing more state control over universities. There is unfortunately, some evidence to suggest that there is a chilling effect on university campuses. For example, 25 per cent of students surveyed by King’s College London describing themselves as scared to express their views openly. We agree that no one should feel uncomfortable expressing their opinion on campus, however the extent to which there is a growing trend of intolerance to speech on campus is unclear. This, furthermore, is a cultural problem – and not something that a blunt legislation will be able to fix.
The extent to which “no platforming” of speakers is a growing trend also needs to be explored further, with research by the government’s own Office for Students suggesting it occurs on a very limited basis. Of more than 62,000 requests by students for external speaker events in English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by the student union or university, less than 1 per cent of the total.
This was echoed by the British Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights which “did not find the wholesale censorship of debate in universities which media coverage has suggested” in their 2018 report on into Freedom of Speech in Universities, and by a recent WONKHE survey which found that of almost 10,000 events involving an external speaker in 2019-20, just six were cancelled – mainly for failing to follow basic administrative processes. This would suggest that at the very least, further research is required to fully understand the scale of the issue.
Freedom of expression is a vital right. Universities are already bound by government legislation and have a legally binding duty to support and actively encourage freedom of expression on campus, including the right to protest. Blunt statutory tools may fail to recognise the various rights at play in any given situation, for example the rights of the speaker and the rights of students to protest against that speaker. This is a delicate balancing act that universities are best placed to navigate – not state regulators or courts of law. On university campuses, freedom of expression issues are best dealt with by existing legislation and by the universities and Student Unions themselves.
We are very concerned that additional legislation, including the imposition of a “Freedom of Speech Champion”, may have the inverse effect of further limiting what is deemed “acceptable” speech on campus and introducing a chilling effect both on the content of what is taught and the scope of academic research exploration.
None of the signatory organisations have been meaningfully consulted in the development of the legislation thus far. We would welcome the opportunity for genuine engagement in the issue of academic freedom. Further research is needed on the main threats to speech on campus, while the scope of enquiry into academic freedom should be widened to encompass government interference. We therefore call for the Academic Freedom Bill to undergo a full, transparent, and meaningful period of consultation.
Signed:
Index on Censorship
English PEN
Article 19[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
