#IndexAwards2018: Index announces Freedom of Expression Awards winners

19 Apr 18 | Awards, News and features

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlUhPA3TuB57QMClBRit7rIZOSam_Orbm”][vc_column_text]A public art project and website celebrating dissent in Cuba and a collective of young bloggers and web activists who give voice to the opinions of young people from all over the Democratic Republic of Congo are among the winners of the 2018 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards.

The winners, who were announced on Thursday evening at a gala ceremony in London, also include one of the only human rights organisations still operating in Egypt and an investigative journalist from Honduras who regularly risks her life for her right to report on what is happening in the country.

Awards were presented in four categories: arts, campaigning, digital activism and journalism.

The winners are: Cuban art collective The Museum of Dissidence (arts); the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms (campaigning); Habari RDC, a collective of young Congolese bloggers and activists (digital activism); and Honduran investigative journalist Wendy Funes (journalism).

“These winners deserve global recognition for their amazing work,” said Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “Like all those nominated, they brave massive personal and political hurdles simply so that others can express themselves freely.”

Drawn from more than 400 public nominations, the winners were presented with their awards at a ceremony at The Mayfair Hotel, London, hosted by “stand-up poet” Kate Fox.

Actors, writers and musicians were among those celebrating with the winners. The guest list included The Times columnist and chair of Index David Aaronovitch, BBC presenter Jonathan Dimbleby,  philosopher AC Grayling, TV journalist Trevor Phillips, lead commissioner for the Commission for Countering Extremism Sara Khan, Serpentine Galleries CEO Yana Peel, poet Sabrina Mahfouz, cartoonist Martin Rowson, founder of the Swedish Pirate Party Rick Falkvinge and more.

Winners were presented with cartoons created by Khalid Albaih, a Romanian-born Sudanese social media based political cartoonist who considers himself a virtual revolutionist.

Each of the award winners will become part of the fourth cohort of Freedom of Expression Awards fellows. They join last year’s winners — Chinese political cartoonist Rebel Pepper (arts); Russian human rights activist Ildar Dadin (campaigning); Digital collective Turkey Blocks (digital activism); news outlet Maldives Independent and its former editor Zaheena Rasheed (journalism) — as part of a world-class network of campaigners, activists and artists sharing best practices on tackling censorship threats internationally.

Through the fellowship, Index works with the winners – both during an intensive week in London and the rest of the awarding year – to provide longer term, structured support. The goal is to help winners maximise their impact, broaden their support and ensure they can continue to excel at fighting free expression threats on the ground.

This year’s panel of judges included Razia Iqbal, a journalist for BBC News, Tim Moloney QC, deputy head of Doughty Street Chambers, Yana Peel, CEO of the Serpentine Galleries, and Eben Upton CBE, a founder of the Raspberry Pi Foundation and CEO of Raspberry Pi.

Awards judge Eben Upton said: “”The ability to speak freely is a key foundation of democratic society and the rule of law: absent the ability to openly identify the abuse of power, extractive economic conditions, and exclusive political institutions, proliferate. This is why freedom of expression is so precious, and so often under attack from those in power.

This is the 18th year of the Freedom of Expression Awards. Former winners include activist Malala Yousafzai, cartoonist Ali Ferzat, journalists Anna Politkovskaya and Fergal Keane, and  Bahrain Center for Human Rights.

Ziyad Marar, President of Global Publishing at SAGE said:  “The protection and promotion of free speech is a belief firmly entrenched within our values at SAGE. As both publisher of the magazine and sponsors of tonight’s awards, we are proud to support Index in their mission as they defend this right globally. We offer our warmest congratulations to those recognised and remain both humbled and awed by their inspirational achievements.”[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”99882″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces”][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”99874″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2018 Freedom of Expression Arts Award ” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”99814″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]The Museum of Dissidence, Cuba

The Museum of Dissidence is a public art project and website celebrating dissent in Cuba. Set up in 2016 by acclaimed artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara and curator Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, their aim is to reclaim the word “dissident” and give it a positive meaning in Cuba. The museum organises radical public art projects and installations, concentrated in the poorer districts of Havana. Their fearlessness in opening dialogues and inhabiting public space has led to fierce repercussions: Nuñez was sacked from her job and Otero arrested and threatened with prison for being a “counter-revolutionary.” Despite this, they persist in challenging Cuba’s restrictions on expression.

Speech: The Museum of Dissidence: “Freedom of expression is an integral part of all societies”

Profile: Museum of Dissidence creators remain fiercely loyal to their project[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2018 Freedom of Expression Campaigning Award ” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”99880″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, Egypt

The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms is one of the few human rights organisations still operating in a country which has waged an orchestrated campaign against independent civil society groups. Egypt is becoming increasingly hostile to dissent, but ECRF continues to provide advocacy, legal support and campaign coordination, drawing attention to the many ongoing human rights abuses under the autocratic rule of President Abdel Fattah-el-Sisi. Their work has seen them subject to state harassment, their headquarters have been raided and staff members arrested. ECRF are committed to carrying on with their work regardless of the challenges.

Speech: ECRF: “No matter how dark is the moment, love and hope are always possible”

Profile: Egytian Commission for Rights and Freedom advocates for a democratic Egypt[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2018 Freedom of Expression Digital Activism Award ” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”99888″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Habari RDC, Congo

Launched in 2016, Habari RDC is a collective of more than 100 young Congolese bloggers and web activists, who use Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to give voice to the opinions of young people from all over the Democratic Republic of Congo. Their site posts stories and cartoons about politics, but it also covers football, the arts and subjects such as domestic violence, child exploitation, the female orgasm and sexual harassment at work. Habari RDC offers a distinctive collection of funny, angry and modern Congolese voices, who are demanding to be heard.

Speech: Guy Muyembe of Habari RDC: “Great is my joy on this day to receive this award on behalf of the Congolese blogging community”

Profile: Habari RDC merges young political minds to fight injustice online[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2018 Freedom of Expression Journalism Award ” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”99885″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Wendy Funes, Honduras

Wendy Funes is an investigative journalist from Honduras who regularly risks her life for her right to report on what is happening in the country, an extremely harsh environment for reporters. Two journalists were murdered in 2017 and her father and friends are among those who have met violent deaths in the country – killings for which no one has ever been brought to justice. Funes meets these challenges with creativity and determination. For one article she had her own death certificate issued to highlight corruption. Funes also writes about violence against women, a huge problem in Honduras where one woman is killed every 16 hours.

Speech: “I dedicate this prize to my fellow people of Honduras”

Profile: Wendy Funes fearlessly pursues investigative journalism in Honduras[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Jodie Ginsberg: “Let’s speak loudly together and lift up the voices not just of Yanelys and Luis, Wendy, Guy and Ahmad but all those fighting to speak freely“” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_single_image image=”99892″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]In the last four years as head of Index I have used various ways to describe this organisation, but a friend hit it on the head earlier this week when she emailed about a vigil she was organising in London. “Index,” she said “please don’t forget to bring your megaphone.”

And that’s us. That’s what we do. Index brings the megaphone. Both literally and metaphorically.

We amplify the voices of those facing censorship – by publishing their work, by campaigning on their behalf, and by supporting them through initiative like the awards fellowship. And we amplify the cause of freedom of expression by promoting debate about it.

Why do we do it?

We do it because we believe freedom of expression is not just a fundamental freedom, but thefundamental freedom. The one on which all others are based. Without freedom of expression how do we begin to articulate our desire for all other freedoms – the freedom to love whomever we choose, to express our faith – or lack of it – or our political beliefs. Freedom of expression allows us to test our ideas, posit our opinions – and to have those ideas and opinions tested. Freedom of expression is not a freedom that benefits only the powerful and privileged. It is what allows us to hold them to account. Free speech has been at the heart of resistance and reform movements since time immemorial. From women’s suffrage to gay rights. As civil rights activist and US congressman John Lewis observed: “Without freedom of speech and the right to dissent, the Civil Rights movement would have been a bird without wings.”

Full speech

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

High resolution images are available on flickr

[/vc_column_text][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1524470042671-7220572a-a0cb-9″ include=”99937,99935,99936,99933,99931,99932,99930,99928,99929,99927,99925,99926,99924,99923,99922,99921,99920,99919,99918,99917,99916,99915,99914,99913,99912,99911,99910,99909,99908,99907,99906,99905,99904,99903,99902″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1524470042687-513f86c4-3062-0″ taxonomies=”8935, 8734″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is grateful for the support of the 2018 Freedom of Expression Awards sponsors: SAGE Publishing, Google, Private Internet Access, Edwardian Hotels, Vodafone, Vice News, Doughty Street Chambers and former Index Award-winning Psiphon.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Freedom of expression includes the right to offend

21 Mar 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship condemns the decision by a Scottish court to convict a comedian of a “hate crime” for teaching his girlfriend’s dog a Nazi salute.

Mark Meechan, known as Count Dankula, was found guilty on Tuesday of being “grossly offensive,” under the UK’s Communications Act of 2003. Meechan could be sentenced with up to six months in prison and be required to pay a fine.

Index disagrees fundamentally with the ruling by the Scottish Sheriff Appeals Court. According to the Daily Record, Judge Derek O’Carroll ruled: “The description of the video as humorous is no magic wand. This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration. But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

Defending everyone’s right to free speech must include defending the rights of those who say things we find shocking or offensive

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: “Numerous rulings by British and European courts have affirmed that freedom of expression includes the right to offend. Defending everyone’s right to free speech must include defending the rights of those who say things we find shocking or offensive. Otherwise the freedom is meaningless.”

One of the most noted judgements is from a 1976 European Court of Human Rights case, Handyside v. United Kingdom, which found: “Freedom of expression…is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Removing titles from bookshops is threat to free expression

20 Mar 18 | Statements

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Index on Censorship believes a recent call to remove Holocaust-denial books from major British retailers by campaign group Hope Not Hate is a threat to freedom of expression.

“Encouraging bookshops not to stock certain content because it’s considered hateful is problematic,” Index CEO Jodie Ginsberg said, “When you’re suggesting removing titles from some of the largest bookshops in the country, which are the ones most people can access, then you are limiting people’s access to information. Anything that limits people’s ability to find out information is a threat to freedom of expression

 [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.

Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1521711003986-1a22655f-cb95-0″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Sergey Smirnov: By banning Russian propaganda, the UK will help Putin in his campaign against press freedom

20 Mar 18 | News and features, Russia

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”98826″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]

This article by Sergey Smirnov, editor-in-chief of MediaZona, was originally published at openDemocracy Russia.

The poisoning of Sergey Skripal has led to a sharp deterioration in UK-Russia relations. For now, London’s official moves, such as deporting 23 Russian diplomats and searching planes inbound from Russia, look moderate. But Boris Johnson’s statement on 16 March was likely unexpected for Moscow. The British foreign minister came to the conclusion that Vladimir Putin sanctioned the attack on Skripal too quickly, though the Kremlin has, for now, merely commented that Johnson’s tone was “unacceptable”.

Immediately after the attack, the British parliament began discussing possible responses to Moscow. One of the first proposals was to stop the Russia Today TV channel, which is financed by the Russian government and is openly involved in propaganda, from broadcasting in the UK. And here it’s important to understand that British MPs have raised an important topic — one that’s painful not just for the Kremlin, but the whole of Russian society, including the opposition.

Banning the Russian propaganda channel in the UK will provoke a predictable reaction in Moscow. And London needs to understand beforehand what will happen (though the Kremlin hasn’t particularly hidden its intentions). First, Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, then Margarita Simonyan, head of RT, made it clear: all British media will be banned in response. This will concern first and foremost the BBC. It’s unclear what will happen to the work of other British media in Russia.

The Kremlin brought independent media in Russia under control long ago. If they managed to deal with television by the mid-2000s, then the internet didn’t really attract the attention of the Russian authorities for some time after. But in recent years the pressure has increased: independent media are often brought under control via oligarchs loyal to the Kremlin. For big internet publications, every year it gets harder to work. High-class independent journalists are fired if they choose not to betray their principles. Meanwhile, the authorities aren’t in a rush to pressure foreign media working in Russia.

Here, it’s important to explain the actions of the Russian authorities, which have been and will be demonised quite enough. The issue is that Vladimir Putin and his team don’t have — and have never had — a clearly worked-out programme to destroy democracy, including freedom of speech. As a rule, all their decisions are situative. Russian television was taken under control after Putin was sharply criticised by the oligarchs Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky. The Russian president likes to act in response to any threats.

Take the events of the past six years. In 2011, hundreds of thousands of people, dissatisfied with the prospect of Putin returning to power, came onto the streets of Russian cities. The protest was suppressed, but the Russian authorities were seriously worried. They set themselves the task of makingeverything dependent on them, in order to ensure these scenes would never be repeated. The authorities undertook various actions: from formally liberalising the political sphere to passing repressive laws at the very moment when people stopped protesting.

Once again, it’s important to understand that the Kremlin’s reaction was a response to street protest. Although these laws may have been prepared beforehand, it seems they were thought up on the spot. Take the “Foreign Agents” law as an example — this law banned NGOs which take foreign funds from being involved in “political activity”. As is often the case in Russia, this law didn’t only touch on the work of human rights organisations, but many others, from environmental NGOs to, most recently, a diabetes society.

Why did they pass this law? Because the authorities believed that the 2011-2012 protests were organised from abroad. The mass protest started after election observers found large-scale falsifications at the parliamentary elections. The Golos election monitoring association prepared the observers. Golos received foreign funding. This is how the Kremlin put it together.

A similar situation happened with the Kremlin’s response to Ukraine. Putin was sure that he was simply responding to attempts by the west to take Ukraine further from Moscow’s influence — and, at the same time, breaking Putin’s agreements with Viktor Yanukovych. The 2012 ban on adopting Russian children (the “Dima Yakovlev” law) was also perceived as a response to hostile actions from the west.

Here, I’m trying to explain the Kremlin’s logic, which becomes even clearer in the case of Russia Today in the US. After RT was registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act in November last year, Moscow started feverishly searching for return measures. The initial suggestions were more reminiscent of North Korea, e.g. banning all independent media, including social networks and even the internet. But then the Kremlin softened its position. All US media, which receive state financing, were declared foreign agents. Other US media have yet to fall under this law’s purview.

For me, there’s two reasons for this. The first, as I wrote above, is that the Kremlin is convinced that it’s defending itself from attacks. It has to respond. The second is that Moscow still leaves itself room for manoeuvre and bargaining. If you ban everything at once, there’s nothing to discuss further — and the Kremlin doesn’t want to end up isolated like North Korea. But the risk of isolation has risen after the Skripal poisoning, and the Russian authorities see this. They won’t make any sudden moves on their own.

This is what western states need to understand about the Kremlin’s behaviour. Currently, there’s no signs that Putin will change his traditional tactics after re-election. The Russian authorities will still monitor the domestic opposition and the actions of the west (and will respond to them). The west needs to understand that the Kremlin’s reaction vis-a-vis freedom of speech and human rights depends on their reaction. Not least of all because the Russian authorities love appealing to the west’s double standards. All actions in connection with RT are seen as the west’s hypocrisy in the field of freedom of speech.

By banning Russian propaganda, the western world helps Putin in his fight against freedom of speech.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1521550689819-572c0ade-65d6-1″ taxonomies=”15″][/vc_column][/vc_row]