You searched for United States of America OR USA - Page 13 of 41

Uncomfortable, but educational: Freedom of expression in UK universities

28 Nov 18

[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces”][vc_column][vc_empty_space][vc_single_image image=”103862″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” css_animation=”fadeIn”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Uncomfortable, but educational: Freedom of expression in UK universities” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Executive summary” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]This report is also available as a PDF[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Free speech is vital to the free flow of thoughts and ideas. Nowhere is this perhaps more important than in universities, which are crucibles for new thought and academic discovery, and whose remit is to encourage and foster critical thinking.

In recent years, however, there has been a concerning rise in apparent attempts to shut down debates on certain subject areas in universities in the UK and elsewhere. Speakers whose views are deemed “offensive”, “harmful” or even “dangerous” have been barred from speaking at events, conferences on particular topics cancelled and new laws introduced that some students and academics argue encourage an atmosphere of self-censorship that is inimical to the spirit of open debate essential for the testing and development of ideas.

Free speech on campus is not a new issue but, for a number of reasons, it has recently become more high profile in the UK and worldwide. For example, in the past three years:

Repeated attempts were made at an event at Goldsmiths, University of London by its Islamic Society to prevent ex-Muslim and feminist campaigner Maryam Namazie from speaking. Students heckled Namazie and accused her of “intimidation”.
The University of Manchester’s students union banned feminist speaker Julie Bindel and right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at a student society debate on free speech.
A proposed conference at Southampton University questioning the legitimacy of the Israeli state was cancelled amid fears of mass protest.

A freedom of expression organisation with an international remit, Index on Censorship seeks to highlight violations of freedom of expression all over the world. Our approach to the principle of freedom of expression is without political affiliation.

In Free Speech on Campus we look at the situation today on UK campuses and in particular examine the existing legal and other protections for free speech in universities. This comes in the wake of renewed government commitments to protect freedom of expression on campus. We point out examples where rights to free speech are being curtailed by students, academics and student unions and highlight the ways in which both higher education institutions and student bodies could do more to protect freedom of expression.

Our findings suggest that existing legislation already provides a strong framework for protecting freedom of expression in this country. However, we are concerned that Prevent legislation in particular – which compels universities to refer students who seem at risk of being drawn into terrorism – is at odds with the statutory duty on universities to protect free speech and echo the call by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for a review of the Prevent policy.

Furthermore, our findings show that universities and student bodies could do more to explicitly demonstrate, and fulfil, their commitment to freedom of expression.

The main recommendations from this report are that:

1. Universities strengthen and simplify codes of practice
We recommend universities revise regularly and publicise more effectively their codes of practice on freedom of expression to make clear their responsibilities and commitment to protecting free speech on campus. See Appendix 1 for examples of good practice.

2. Student unions clarify policies
We urge student unions to reaffirm a commitment to freedom of expression in their policies and remove “no-platforming” policies that involve outlawing speakers who are not members of groups already proscribed by government.

3. Prevent review
We encourage the government to undertake an immediate independent review of the Prevent policy that assesses the Prevent duty’s effectiveness in the context of higher education and its impact on freedom of speech and association, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others.

4. Reject fines system to punish non-compliance
We do not believe that fines are the mechanism to promote freedom of expression on campus. Rather, a clearer commitment to freedom of expression from governing bodies and student unions would encourage this.

5. Survey attitudes to free speech and make rights education part of 11-18 curriculum
A comprehensive survey of staff and students’ attitudes and experiences would help to better identify strategies for promoting the value of freedom of expression on campus. Since free speech has been identified by government as a central British value, developing strategies for its better promotion – including developing educational training material for young people in secondary education – is a key component in ensuring its protection.

Our recommendations are aimed at all policy-makers involved with universities and other higher education institutions (HEIs), including the new regulator, the Office for Students (OfS). The recommendations are designed to help universities and their stakeholders navigate the current legislative requirements to protect public safety while balancing the need for free speech on campuses.

We hope that they help to empower HEIs against self-censorship for fear of undue media attention or reaction from students as “consumers” of education at private institutions. This work is not intended to be a conclusion to the subject, but rather a living document that continues to spark innovative ways of approaching free speech on campus. As a result, we welcome discussions and interactions with universities to continue the debate and resolve any unanswered questions.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Introduction” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination are intertwined rights. Both have been the subject of much debate in their application to HEIs, especially about the balance between the protection of free speech versus the duty of universities to prevent discrimination and provide a safe working environment for staff and students alike. Often these duties are presented as somehow mutually exclusive.

Activism on UK campuses is nothing new and the debate on free speech has been present since at least the 1960s. However, Index is concerned that laws passed in the last 30 years relating to free speech, anti-discrimination and counter-terrorism – as well as cultural attitude shifts towards freedom of expression among some in the student population – have the potential to make academic free thinking, social debate, and political activism that encourages diverse viewpoints more difficult.

University policies and practice

A survey by freedom of expression group Spiked in 2018 of 115 universities across the UK – in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland found that 54% actively censor speech. Some had rules that speakers could not appear on university platforms unless their speeches were cleared by university authorities. Some have banned or disinvited speakers in recent years, such as the former leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson. Others have codes of conduct that prescribe (with threats of disciplinary action) acceptable ways of talking about certain issues in order to “promote an atmosphere in which all students and staff feel valued”. Universities have argued that the latter simply make clear that homophobic, sexist and racist language will not be tolerated as per their duties on promotion of equality (see page 10 Public Sector Equality Duty). Critics of the rankings say that the freedom of speech violations are exaggerated by the “red ratings” given in the survey results and overstate the restrictions on freedom of expression on UK campuses.

Universities UK, the representative organisation for UK universities, has asserted the importance of protecting freedom of expression in higher education establishments and a number of leading academics have also spoken publicly on the issue. In early 2016, on the day of her formal installation as the new vice chancellor of Oxford University, the political scientist Professor Louise Richardson, said: “Education is not meant to be comfortable. Education should be about confronting ideas you find really objectionable, figuring out why it is you should find them objectionable, fashioning a reasoned argument against them, confronting the person you disagree with and trying to change their mind, being open to them changing your mind. That isn’t a comfortable experience, but it is a very educational one.”

Students’ behaviour

Students in the UK have also been responsible for limiting speech: boycotting pro and anti-Israel speakers; banning tabloid newspapers in the student union; and “no-platforming” feminists who have been critical of transgender men and women.

Sometimes universities and students work in tandem. For instance, when the student union at the London School of Economics objected to t-shirts being worn at the LSE Freshers Fair with the “Jesus and Mo” motif, the university’s security staff became involved and the students wearing the t-shirts were told they would be removed from the premises if they did not cover up the shirts.

UK government policy

The current UK government has stated on a number of occasions in recent years its commitment to ensuring freedom of expression in universities.

The new Office for Students was announced in January 2018 and took up operation as the new regulator for higher education in England from April 2018. The issue of free speech is already at the forefront of the regulator’s mind, as one of its key responsibilities is to assess students’ access to free speech and penalise institutions that do not comply with their own freedom of speech code.
Unlike the USA, the UK has no first amendment protection on speech. In recent times, while condemning bans on free speech, the UK government has put free speech limitations on a seemingly statutory footing, with the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTSA) leading to the government’s Prevent policy, which – whether intended to or not – is having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Prevent aims to curb home-grown terrorism. The Prevent policy applies across schools, further education colleges and universities to deny a platform to those who might promote terrorism unless the risks can be mitigated. The strategy has been interpreted as encouraging teachers and lecturers to report those who might have been radicalised or might radicalise others – although the CTSA does require institutions to have “particular regard to the duty to ensure free speech” and to “the importance of academic freedom” when carrying out the Prevent duty.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”103860″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”The road to legislation: a brief history” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Freedom of expression at higher education institutions has a specific protection under the Education (No 2) Act 1986.

The act states that everyone involved with the governance of an HEI must take such steps as are “reasonably practicable” to ensure freedom of speech is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers.

This means that universities have an explicit duty to protect freedom of expression in their institutions. Notably it requires universities to keep up to date a code of practice that sets out what procedures it expects from staff and students regarding freedom of expression. Furthermore, it further includes student union premises as being part of the “university establishment” even if not owned by the university, which is significant when considering the degree to which student groups might be able to argue they are not party to the requirements of the act as regards freedom of expression.

The statutory duty on universities to protect freedom of expression came in part as in response to a series of clashes at university unions in preceding decades (see box on “no-platforming”).[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1543331576744{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]No-platforming

Demonstrating against speakers, boycotting goods and banning or cancelling speeches (no platforming) has been present on UK campuses for many decades.

“No-platforming” is a term used to mean the barring of certain speakers based on their political affiliations.
It developed in the early 1970s as a reaction to attempts by the far-right National Front to recruit people on campus.
The term “no-platform” was first used by the International Marxist Group, who argued: “The only way to deal with fascist type organisations like the National Front is to break up their activities before they grow to a size where they can begin to smash the activities of the working class.”
At the 1974 National Union of Students conference, a “no-platform” policy was adopted. It stated: “[C]onference believes that in order to counter these [racist and fascist] groups, it is… necessary to prevent any member of these organisations or individuals known to espouse similar views from speaking in colleges by whatever means necessary (including disrupting of the meeting).”
The no-platform policy was criticised by some at the time as a denial of free speech. The Guardian warned in an editorial: “Students should perhaps remember that frustration which leads to a denial of the right of one section of society is not something new. It is a classic pattern of fascism.”
The current NUS policy, as set out in its articles of association, provides that no “individuals or members of organisations or groups identified by the Democratic Procedures Committee as holding racist or fascist views” may stand for election to any NUS position, or attend or speak at any NUS function or conference. Furthermore, officers, committee members, or trustees may not share a platform with any racist or fascist. The six organisations currently on the no-platform list are:
- Al-Muhajiroun;
- British National Party;
- English Defence League;
- Hizb-ut-Tahrir;
- Muslim Public Affairs Committee.
- National Action

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Legislation applicable to higher education institutions” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The UK higher education system is quasi-public, essentially functioning as a system of “private institutions operating in the public interest”. There are around 162 HEIs – all publicly funded – and a handful of private universities in the UK. All UK institutions are legally independent, self-governing institutions.

Educational institutions in the UK are governed in a number of ways, depending on how they were established. UK HEIs are autonomous institutions and tend to be operated by internal articles of governance. Governance groups are usually councils and a board of faculties, supported by chairs of committees; some universities are set up as limited companies. In most cases the institution will have a body representing students as part of the governing group.

University policy, including staff and student behaviour, is governed by a range of legislation – from local laws in the UK to international treaties. The rights to freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination in the UK have evolved over time. The legal representations are therefore covered by common law, the UK’s domestic legislation and its international legal obligations.

From April 2018, a new regulator, the OfS became operational to begin regulating HEIs in England. Its responsibilities will include ensuring that HEIs promote the right to freedom of speech.

This section of Free Speech on Campus is intended to be an introduction to the legal obligations facing universities and HEIs. It is included as a summary and guide to help HEIs and stakeholders see at a glance the range of legislation, constitutions and codes that govern their operation and must be covered in their policies and codes of practice. For more information on the exact articles and their details – and specific legislation applicable to student unions – please see Appendix 2.

UK legislation

Freedom of expression is enshrined and protected in UK law by the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The most important of the convention’s protections in this context is Article 10.

Article 10 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

It is worth noting that freedom of expression, as outlined in Article 10, is a qualified right, meaning the right must be balanced against other rights. Nevertheless, several judgments by the European Court of Human Rights have held that “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”.

The recommendations laid out in this report suggest how this might be done in such a way as to ensure freedom of expression is given due consideration in any such assessments.

Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986
As outlined above, section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 contains a duty to secure freedom of speech in educational establishments. It requires those involved in the government of any university or higher education institution to take steps to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for its members, students and employees and visiting speakers, and that the use of any premises of the establishment concerned is not denied to any persons on grounds connected to their beliefs, views, policies or objectives. The full text of this section can be found in the appendices.

Public Order Act 1986
The Public Order Act makes it an offence for anyone to deliberately cause another person to fear [that] violence will be used against them or from someone to intentionally harass, alarm, or distress another.

Education Reform Act 1988
The Education Reform Act protects academic freedom and requires university commissioners to: “ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions.”

Education Act 1994
The Education Act requires HEIs to bring to the attention of students, at least once a year, the requirements of the act relating to freedom of speech in universities and colleges.

Human Rights Act 1998
Since the Human Rights Act came into force, UK laws are required to be compliant with the rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights, including that of free speech and freedom of association and assembly. Under the act, HEIs are under a statutory duty to protect the free speech of staff and students, as well as protecting them from discrimination.

Higher Education Act 2004
The Higher Education Act applies in its definition of the types of higher education governing bodies that are bound by the duties of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (See below).

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
This creates an offence in England and Wales of intentionally inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion or race.

Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 brings together more than 116 pieces of legislation covering anti-discrimination law in the UK. Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Equality Act (the Higher Education Chapter) applies, in conjunction with Part 2 of the Equality Act, to HEIs, and specifically protects students and prospective students from discrimination, harassment or victimisation from the institution’s governing body. Chapter 2 of the Equality Act does not cover student unions (See Appendix 2 for more information).

Public Sector Equality Duty
As public bodies, most HEIs are subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The duty obliges public bodies to actively have regard to: eliminating discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other prohibited conduct; advancing equality of opportunity; and fostering good relations between people who have protected characteristics and those who do not.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 imposes a legal obligation on UK HEIs to “take steps to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.” This legislation forms part of the UK government’s Prevent Duty (See below and Appendix 2 for more detail).

Prevent Duty
There is a statutory duty on universities to tackle radicalisation through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Prevent, the counter-terrorism duty, applies across schools, further education colleges and universities (See case study below).

Higher Education and Research Act 2017
The Higher Education and Research Act aims to create a new regulatory framework for higher education, increase competition and student choice, ensure students receive value for money, and strengthen the research sector. The act established the Office for Students and sets out its role as the new regulator and funding council for the higher education sector. The role includes ensuring that students receive value for money. The OfS will also hold HEIs registered under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to account regarding the state of free speech on their campuses, with the powers to penalise institutions that do not comply with their own freedom of speech code.

International standards applicable in the UK

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (Articles 2, 7 and 19)
Written at the United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War, this declaration sets out fundamental human rights for universal protection. Articles 2, 7 and 19 deal with freedom of speech and protection against discrimination.

European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 10 and 11)
Articles 10 and 11 in the European Convention on Human Rights help to protect free speech. Article 10 qualifies that right with responsibilities; and Article 11 covers public assembly for the purposes of exercising free speech, but also qualifies that with the right to reinforce public safety.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
The Charter of Fundamental Rights brings together all the personal, civic, political, economic and social rights that were established at different times for different individual EU states. It also incorporates new developments in science and technology that may affect the protection of these rights – for example, data privacy. Articles 11 and 12 cover freedom of expression and assembling to express free speech.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (Articles 19, 20(2), 26 and 27)
This International Covenant is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. It qualifies those rights with the need for prohibiting violence or public disorder.

Protecting students and staff against discrimination

The following conventions protect citizens from harassment and discrimination. Universities and HEIs need to be aware of these laws. While they do not directly protect free speech, they can influence policies and decisions to allow certain events and speeches from happening on campus.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1981
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2008

It is worth noting that it is often wrongly assumed that the duties to protect staff and students from discrimination or harassment are in conflict with, or trump, duties to protect freedom of expression. This is not the case. In fact, we believe that with the exception of Prevent, it is perfectly possible to protect freedom of expression while also meeting other statutory duties. Universities and the OfS should be clearer in asserting this when “harm” and “safety” are used as arguments to restrict legal speech on campus.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”103887″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Current concerns on UK campuses” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Between 2015 and 2017, the Spiked Free Speech University Rankings surveyed 115 universities in the UK and tracked 129 bans. The most recent Spiked report (2018) shows that 20 universities have banned some newspapers, 21 have banned speakers, 16 have suspended a number of student societies, 17 have banned adverts, 16 have banned a number of student societies, and nine have banned some types of fancy dress.

This suggests a climate in which freedom of expression is increasingly limited. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights challenges this view in its recent report on freedom of expression in universities. It found: “The extent to which students restrict free speech at universities should not be exaggerated. Where it happens, it is a serious problem and it is wrong. But it is not a pervasive problem. The evidence we have taken shows that overall there is support for the principle of freedom of speech among the student population…much of the concern about free speech appears to have come from a small number of incidents which have been widely reported.”

Censorship is of course, most difficult to spot when it involves self-censorship. Few of the recent studies or surveys into censorship on campus relate to instances in which individuals or groups no longer feel able to discuss certain topics – and therefore it is currently impossible to quantify the actual level of censorship – or limitations on freedom of expression – taking place in UK universities. Even evincing positive support for the principle of free speech is not necessarily indicative that individuals are willing to put such support into practice when it comes to allowing speakers who are controversial, even offensive, to speak on campus.

More research is needed to understand the areas in which free speech is limited on campus and the extent to which students and staff feel able to air views freely.

This report identifies four key barriers we see facing universities relating to their statutory duty to protect freedom of expression. These are:
1. Prevent
2. No-platform policies
3. Heckler’s veto
4. Notions of speech as harm

Prevent

HEIs are obliged to abide by current regulations, and comply with the requirements of the OfS, the new regulator, as outlined above. While this includes promoting free speech, recent government legislation is also influencing university polices and codes of practice, often resulting in a knock-on negative impact on free speech on campuses. For example, the government’s anti-terrorism legislation requires institutions to comply with the Prevent duty as part of anti-terrorism legislation in a way that a number of people have argued is incompatible with its statutory duties to protect freedom of expression.

The Prevent duty guidance states: “[ … ] when deciding whether or not to host a particular speaker, RHEBs [relevant higher education bodies] should consider carefully whether the views being expressed, or likely to be expressed, constitute extremist views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups. In these circumstances the event should not be allowed to proceed except where RHEBs are entirely convinced that such risk can be fully mitigated without cancellation of the event [ … ]. Where RHEBs are in any doubt that the risk cannot be fully mitigated they should exercise caution and not allow the event to proceed.”

Although the government points out that the Prevent guidance does not preclude speakers with extremist views from speaking on campus and does not require academics to ‘report’ students who discuss sensitive issues, it is clear that the way in which Prevent guidelines are being understood is encouraging a level of caution that is at odds with the positive duty to secure freedom of speech in universities.

Imran Awan, associate professor in criminology at Birmingham City University, argued in an article published on Aljazeera.com: “Today, thanks to the government’s policies that aim to transform academic staff into counter-terrorism police, openness, tolerance and freedom of expression in UK universities are under threat. Academic staff are being encouraged to report their students for reasons like discussing certain ‘sensitive’ topics, asking certain questions or even reading ‘suspicious’ textbooks. Also, universities are being told not to give [a] platform to certain speakers because they have been classified – mostly without any substantial evidence – as extremists or radicals. All this is stifling academic debate, making university lecturers feel under pressure and forcing them to avoid ‘risky’ subjects and ideas rather than challenging, questioning and confronting them.”

At its 2015 congress, the University and College Union passed a policy setting out objections to the Prevent duty, including the fact that “[it] seriously threatens academic freedom and freedom of speech”. The National Union of Students has taken a stand against Prevent, arguing that it disproportionately targets Muslim students and poses a challenge to free speech. An NUS campaign, Students Not Suspects, has also challenged the legislation’s effect on students.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1543331688705{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_text]What the Prevent duty says about universities

The Prevent duty was brought into force by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 which specifies certain authorities, including universities and higher education institutions, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. The government provides online training on the Prevent duty.

The Prevent guidance includes the catch-all phrase that universities must make sure their students or staff are not “drawn into terrorism, which includes not just violent extremism but also non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit. It is a condition of funding that all further education and independent training providers must comply with relevant legislation and any statutory responsibilities associated with the delivery of education and safeguarding of learners”.

Prevent on students
Noting that “young people continue to make up a disproportionately high number of those arrested […] for terrorist-related offences”, the Prevent guidelines identify universities as a place that young people “risk radicalisation”, which can be facilitated through events held for extremist speakers, or through other radicalised students on social media.

Prevent on events
Where events are concerned, the guidance contains this statement: “Where institutions are in any doubt that the risk cannot be fully mitigated they should exercise caution and not allow the event to proceed.”

Privacy
In January 2017 King’s College, London, told students that their email could be retained and monitored as part of the college’s Prevent obligations. It is believed other universities also monitor emails. Critics, including human rights lawyers, have said the policy is a catch-all for many types of political dissent and free speech, and that it encourages the demonisation of Muslims.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Most recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights identified evidence given to the committee that showed Prevent was having a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Prevent duty

Prevent places a duty on educational institutions to deny a platform to those who might incite terrorism unless the risks cannot be mitigated. It also encourages universities to monitor students’ behaviour. The most controversial aspect of the legislation is that it is aimed at “extremist” speakers. “Extremism” as defined by the government is “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Critics, including Index on Censorship, argue this definition of “extremist” is too broad and does not simply include members of proscribed organisations but could potentially include anyone whose views do not currently chime with national views on particular issues (e.g. those who object to homosexuality on religious grounds). The government stresses that the policy only applies to extremist speakers who could draw others into terrorism but evidence suggests this is not how the policy has been understood, leaving universities struggling with two conflicting policies in which the cautious approach of Prevent is seen to trump the duty to protect free speech.

Conclusion

Evidence provided by academics and students to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as interviews conducted with students and other organisations by Index on Censorship suggests that the Prevent duty is having a chilling effect on freedom of expression in British universities.

We recommend:
The government undertake an immediate independent review of the Prevent policy – and in particular the way it is being trained, understood and implemented – that assesses the Prevent duty’s effectiveness in the context of higher education and its impact on freedom of speech and association, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This review should include a comprehensive survey – not simply small-scale sampling – of students and academics’ views and experiences. In particular, this should consider the degree to which these groups “self-censor”.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator][vc_custom_heading text=”No-platforming” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]The principles of free debate include the idea that speech must be countered with speech so that ideas are explored, viewpoints challenged, and arguments refined. No-platforming goes against this principle by seeking to stop certain people speaking on the grounds that they hold views that are offensive. Although the current NUS policies only specify six groups who should be no-platformed, the policy and term have been applied far more widely to ban certain speakers from union events.

This is because the NUS’s position is that unions “have a right to refuse individuals and groups who threaten the safe environment students’ unions provide for their members”.

This definition is extremely broad, not least because “safe” (and the accompanying notion of “harm”) in this context are entirely subjective criteria, and risks a wide swathe of speakers being prevented from speaking on campus. We consider the question of harm in a later section.

At present, the NUS no-platform policy prevents representatives of the NUS from sharing a public platform with named individuals or groups, officially six “fascist and racist organisations”: Al-Muhajiron; British National Party; English Defence League; Hizb-ut-Tahir; Muslim Public Affairs Committee; and National Action. Two of these organisations: Al-Muhajiron and National Action are proscribed terror organisations under UK law and speakers from the others might well be unable to speak at universities under the government’s counter-terrorism and anti-extremist legislation.

While individual university unions and student groups are not bound by this list, a 2016 ComRes survey of 1,000 university students found that 63% supported the NUS “no-platform policy” and 54% thought that the policy should be enforced against people who could be found intimidating. In reality, no-platforming has been extended to other speakers student unions find offensive. The case study below examines in more depth the case of Julie Bindel who was no-platformed by Manchester Students Union for her view on transgender men and women.

Conclusion
Student unions should reaffirm a commitment to freedom of expression in their policies and remove all no-platforming policies that involve outlawing speakers who are not members of groups already proscribed by government.

While we welcome the focus on the OfS for ensuring that educational institutions promote free speech, we do not believe that penalties for non-compliance that include monetary fines or de-registration are likely to actively promote freedom of expression. Rather, we encourage a more active and vocal stance among university and student leadership that demonstrates a commitment to freedom of expression, that includes the freedom to voice ideas that others find offensive. It is vital in this context that more is done to divorce notions of offensiveness from harm (See section 4 below).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1543331734870{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_text]Manchester University Students Union no-platforms Julie Bindel

Julie Bindel is a “political lesbian feminist” who has campaigned against sexual violence for more than three decades. In October 2015 the Free Speech and Secular Society at Manchester University invited Bindel to speak at an event called From Liberation to Censorship: Does Modern Feminism Have a Problem With Free Speech? However, the students union decided to prevent her from speaking, claiming that Bindel’s views on transgender women were “dangerous” and could “incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students”.

The charge relates to views such as those expressed in the 2004 article “Gender benders, beware”, in which Bindel stated that transgender women are not women and that rape counsellor Kimberley Nixon was “a man in a dress”.

Bindel told Index that, while people have the right to be offended by her speech, this does not in itself justify shutting someone down. But the students were not invoking offence as the deciding issue. A third-year politics and history student at the university told Index in an interview that it was important for the students that the union was a place where students can be safe from “harm”. She noted students had a right to determine who or what the union allows or doesn’t allow on campus because they pay fees that partially fund the student union.

Bindel argues that resolutions by the NUS to no-platform her at universities have caused some students and even academics to shy away from debate or research on contentious issues: “I have looked at loads of syllabuses on prostitution or sex work, as they call it, on feminism, or in other words, on transgenderism, on sexuality, and there is literally no voice of dissent.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator][vc_custom_heading text=”Heckler’s veto” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Threatening violence or disruption in response to a speaking event on campus can be used as a way to prevent that speaker being heard, and – given universities duty to ensure the safety of its students – this could lead educational institutions to cancel events as a result. In many of these, because of legal requirements on universities and unions, student societies are charged a security fee for organising potentially disruptive events; they are required to give notice for inviting “controversial” speakers; and they must pass a number of checks before an event can be approved. All of the above means controversial speakers risk being unable to speak on campus because a risk‑averse institution would consider it unable to guarantee safety.

A “heckler’s veto” is a termed coined to describe a situation in which a speaker’s right is curtailed by:

government or other action to prevent another party from reacting negatively to the speaker’s message
a person who disagrees with a speaker’s message triggering events to cause the speaker to be silenced – such as the threat of demonstration or violence.

In October 2016 Hen Mazzig, a former Israeli Defence Force intelligence officer and self-described pro-Israel activist, gave a talk at University College London (UCL). He was met with protests from students and outside groups who viewed Mazzig as “complicit in the colonisation of Palestinian territory, protection of illegal Israeli settlements, and Israel’s illegal occupation”. UCL’s Provost Professor Michael Arthur stated that the university is “clear in its support both of freedom of speech and of the right to protest”. However, a UCL investigation found that, while the majority of protesters and attendees were non-violent, Mazzig’s freedom of speech was “intentionally disrupted”.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Conclusion

We believe that the findings of the judge in the Southampton case form a useful basis for improved codes of practice in assessments used by universities and student bodies when considering the security risks involved. Institutions must conduct credible risk assessments – and provide where practicable measures to protect students – to ensure that controversial speakers are able to speak on campus despite threats of potential violence.

These should form part of revised, simplified codes of practice on freedom of expression in universities.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1543331761228{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_text]Heckler’s veto at Southampton University

At the University of Southampton in 2015, a proposed conference to examine the legality of the state of Israel called International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism sparked demonstrations on campus. In response, the university’s chief operating officer conducted a risk assessment and obtained a police report. Following this, the university’s vice‑chancellor withdrew permission for the conference to be held on campus, citing a high risk of disorder. In this case, the court accorded the university a wide discretion in determining its “reasonably practicable” response to such a situation.

In response, two professors sought permission for judicial review to reverse the decision to ban the conference. The professors submitted that, in refusing permission, the university had breached its duties to uphold freedom of expression under section 43 of the Education Act (and Article 10 of the ECHR), by virtue of the refusal having been: (i) made on the grounds that the views to be expressed at the conference were controversial and had led to complaints; and (ii) based on exaggerated and unsubstantiated security and safety concerns.

However, the appeal found that the decision to withdraw permission had been taken for proper reasons, in good faith, and with regard to the duty to promote freedom of speech. (R (Ben-Dors) v University of Southampton [2016] EWHC 953 (Admin))

The court found that:

the decision was taken on the grounds of security (it was not possible to maintain good order or safeguard staff and students).
the decision involved the “minimum derogation from the right of freedom of speech necessary to ensure safety and security”.
the university had carried out an adequate risk assessment that concluded that the security of staff and students could not be secured in the face of the identified risk of 400 to 1,000 protestors.

Such assessment had been based on the experience of the Head of Security, advice from police, information obtained by the university, and its own risk assessment.

the conference had not been cancelled because of the nature of the speakers, and it was legitimate for regard to be had to the nature of the speakers when considering the risks imposed by an event.
the decision was only to prevent the conference being held at the identified location and at the identified time. There was no prohibition on the conference being held elsewhere, publication of material to be presented at the conference.
a commitment had been made to commission an independent report exploring how the conference could be held in the future.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator][vc_custom_heading text=”Speech as harm” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]It is the duty of universities to ensure the physical safety of students’ and staff while on campus and that they do not face discrimination. Whereas in the past notions of safety and harm related almost exclusively to physical acts, institutions and student bodies have become increasingly occupied with the harm that can be caused by words. As an organisation that understands very well the power of words, we would not seek to argue that words can never cause harm. However, we would stress both that the harm caused by words is subjective and that censorship of such words is not the way to tackle “harmful” ideas.

Other than the speech already outlawed by the various acts outlined above, most forms of speech are permitted by law. However, we increasingly see in arguments for speech to be censored on campuses the argument that the speech in question causes harm and should therefore be outlawed because this puts a university in breach of its duty to care for students.

In the USA, which has foreshadowed the majority of developments now being seen on UK campuses, three terms have become increasingly prominent in the debate. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that appear to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. US lawyer Greg Lukianoff and academic Jonathan Haidt, give the example of microaggressions cited by the Asian American student association at Brandeis University in the United States, which sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.”

Trigger warnings are alerts that academics might issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. Lukianoff and Haidt describe how some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, “so that students who have been previously victimised by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might ‘trigger’ a recurrence of past trauma”.

Today, the term “safe space” has come to mean anything from a specific space on campus that students of a certain background feel comfortable in, to the banning of speakers, ideas, and publications from the university campus as a whole. Broadly speaking, safe space policies include guidelines that promote a safe environment for students to engage in discussions free from interrogation and judgement. This may result in individuals in breach of such guidelines being asked to leave the discussion or the space.

In setting out their policies and codes of practice on freedom of expression on campus, it is important that subjective notions of “harmful” speech are not used by HEIs as the benchmark for dictating what speech is permissible. As discussed in previous sections, it is the statutory duty of academic institutions to protect freedom of speech. This includes speech that might be offensive or shocking. We see the protection of such speech as in no way incompatible with academic institutions other duties to protect students from discrimination or harassment.

However, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt have argued that, conversely, trigger warnings could contribute to trauma survivors seeing themselves as constantly at risk of being triggered and perpetually unable to tolerate reminders of trauma. They also suggest trigger warnings and other protective campus practices could prompt students who have not experienced trauma to perceive threat and harm where there is none, making them more emotionally vulnerable and less resilient.

Statements of principle and codes of practice provide important frameworks by which HEIs can make clear their commitment to – and mechanisms for protecting – freedom of expression on campus.

We believe universities should use statements of principle and codes of practice to demonstrate that the duty of a university is to protect and promote freedom of expression so as to avoid confusion about what speech is and is not permissible on campus. All those who fall under the “governing body” – including student unions – must be made aware of their duty to comply with these commitments. In this context, we also welcome a commitment by the Charities Commission to review its guidelines as they concern student unions and free speech.

We are concerned by examples where codes appear to suggest that the duty to protect freedom of expression might have to be compromised in order to fulfil other duties or which outline types of speech that might be deemed unacceptable beyond illegal speech send confusing messages about the responsibility of the university in upholding freedom of expression. Complex procedures for inviting and approving speakers can also have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Examples of best practice are included in Appendix 1.

Conclusion

The existence of trigger warnings and safe spaces are not, in and of themselves, indicative of a lack of freedom of expression on campus although they certainly can be used to restrict expression. However, we are more concerned that universities have through deliberate messaging – or lack of messaging – allowed their statutory duty to protect freedom of expression be seen as in some way a lesser duty than that of protecting students. We would argue that it it is possible for a university to fulfil both its duty to protect students and staff from discrimination and harassment while at the same time allowing freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to offend.

We recommend that universities simplify and revise their codes of practice on freedom of expression and state these explicitly to students and staff as part of their induction processes.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1543331832371{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_text]Trigger warnings – for or against?

Many universities in the UK, including individual lecturers, have introduced the term “trigger warnings”: a statement at the start of a piece of writing or video, for example, alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material. They apply mostly to subject matter dealing with violence against women, general violence and subject matter related to racism and colonialism. Supporters of this practice say that trigger warnings are not about shutting down debate, or letting students off doing work, but about signalling difficult subjects so that students do not relive trauma.

Dr Onni Gust, an assistant professor at the University of Nottingham, who teaches the history of the idea of monstrosity in the 18th century British Empire, defended their use in an article for The Guardian. Gust said trigger warnings did not mollycoddle students: “A trigger warning does not give permission for students to skip class, avoid a topic or choose alternative readings. What it does do is signal to survivors of abuse or trauma that they need to keep breathing. It reminds them to be particularly aware of the skills and coping strategies that they have developed and to switch them on.”

Izzy Gurbuz, wellbeing officer at the University of Manchester Students’ Union told student magazine The Mancunion that: “Trigger warnings simply allow those whose mental health could be significantly affected by certain topics to make informed decisions about their health. For example, adequately preparing themselves so they’re able to take part in particular discussion, or avoiding a situation which would cause them flashbacks or a panic attack.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator][vc_custom_heading text=”Other factors” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Students as consumers

Education is now a big business in the UK. In late 2017, there were more than 500,000 new university students compared to only 68,000 people in 1980. Research shows that there are now twice as many people getting a degree as were gaining five O-levels in the early 1980s.

The introduction of market principles to British academic life has had a number of effects in the arena of free speech, impacting on students and staff. Today’s students demand a world-class education, but they also want value for money. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 reinforces a consumerist approach to university by treating students like customers. The “customer” relationship that students have with their educational institute has recently been reinforced by the OfS requirements to ensure value for money for students as one of its duties under the new regulation regime.

As Joanna Williams, author and editor at Spiked, says: “In today’s marketed and consumer driven higher-education sector, many students have come to expect freedom from speech. They argue the university campus should be a ‘safe space’ free from emotional harm or potential offence.”

In March 2017, academic Liz Morrish told the Times Higher Education that the “audit culture” in her university led to her resignation: “Last year saw the intensification of outcomes-based performance management in many universities … In the UK, much of the rush to management by metrics is in response to shifting government incentives and policy changes, which, fed through the mechanism of the research excellence framework, affect institutional priorities, reputations and funding levels. Many of these metrics are quite outside the control of academics. Nevertheless, they have been weaponised as tools of performance management, and the very nature of the scrutiny creates a hostile environment for academic freedom.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1543331866474{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_text]Safe from harm?

In November 2016, City University’s student union voted in favour of a motion targeting tabloid newspapers that it claimed published divisive narratives that were sexist, demonised minorities, and scapegoated the working class. Written by student Nick Owen, the motion stated that: “There is no place for the Sun, Daily Mail or Express (in their current form) on City, University of London, campuses or properties.”

Owen told Index: “It was around about the time where Jo Cox had been murdered and the Express were running things about judges, Brexit, things that mirrored Nazi propaganda. I wanted the university to do something, to make a stand.”

Students opposing the motion did not disagree with the idea that the UK media needs criticising, but they did not view banning newspapers as a constructive way to improve the quality of journalism in the UK.

Journalism student Vincent Wood, who wrote a motion that successfully overturned the ban in February 2017, told Index: “We should be supporting journalists working at these papers who feel they are representing a view that they shouldn’t be. We offered to approach issues through education as oppose to grandstanding and potential bans.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Misreporting of free speech controversies

We are concerned that some free speech controversies may have been misreported, undermining attempts to promote debates about free expression in university.

In another incident, media widely reported that a student at the University of Edinburgh had been reported to university authorities by a fellow student for Islamaphobia for “mocking Islamic State on Facebook” – a story that was untrue but which succeeded in successfully smearing the reputation of the black female student who had reported the individual.15

These incidents reflect debates within British universities, not only among students but also among academics, about how to deal with the more diverse student population and a changing attitude to colonialism, race and the history of the UK.

Misreporting of freedom of expression issues in the UK risks diminishing support for the principle of freedom of expression more widely.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1543331885749{background-color: #efefef !important;}”][vc_column_text]Ban white philopshers?

When protests at SOAS, University of London, called for the “decolonisation of the curriculum”, news reports were inaccurate in their coverage. Students were calling for a greater representation of diverse voices in the philosophy curriculum and for white philosophers and history to be taught in its colonial context. Dr Meera Sabarathnam, a lecturer in international relations at SOAS, explained in her blog that this meant three things: challenging assumptions about culture and the way history is taught; putting philosophers and writers in their historical context; and thinking about “implications of a more diverse student body in terms of pedagogy and achievement”. The newspaper reports of this move inaccurately said that students wanted to “ban white philosophers”. The headline in the Daily Mail ran: “They Kant be serious! PC students demand white philosophers including Plato and Descartes be dropped from university syllabus.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_single_image image=”103856″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Conclusion and recommendations” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]1. University codes of practice

Under section 43 of the 1986 Education Act, universities are annually obliged to share their guidelines on freedom of expression. We recommend HEIs revise regularly and publicise more effectively their codes of practice on freedom of expression to make clear their responsibilities and their commitment to protecting free speech on campus. This could include making clear policies on trigger warnings and safe spaces to make clear students should expect to encounter uncomfortable and offensive ideas. Codes of practice should include “highest standards tests” to ensure that opponents of a particular speaker or idea cannot use “heckler’s veto” to threaten violence in order to force a university or student group to cancel a debate.

Universities should, as a matter of course:
a. Have a clear statement of principles on university’s commitment to freedom of expression. See Appendix 1 for examples of good practice examples. These should make clear that the university has an explicit duty to protect freedom of expression.
b. Update and simplify policies on handling potentially controversial events to ensure speakers and protestors can both exercise their lawful rights to speak without risk of physical harm.

2. Student unions’ policies

We urge student unions to reaffirm a commitment to freedom of expression in their policies and remove “no-platforming” policies that involve outlawing speakers who are not members of groups already proscribed by government.

3. Prevent review

The government should undertake an immediate independent review of the Prevent policy that assesses the Prevent duty’s effectiveness in the context of higher education and its impact on freedom of speech and association, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others. This review should include a comprehensive survey – not simply small-scale sampling – of students and academics’ views and experiences. In particular, this should consider the degree to which these groups “self-censor”.

4. Reject fines system to punish non‑compliance

We do not believe that fines are the mechanism to promote freedom of expression on campus. Rather, a clearer commitment to freedom of expression from governing bodies and student unions would encourage this.

5. Undertake a full survey of student and staff attitudes to free speech

It is clear that there is a lack of research into attitudes towards freedom of expression in universities. A comprehensive survey of staff and students’ attitudes and experiences would help to better identify strategies for promoting the value of freedom of expression on campus. Since free speech has been identified by successive British prime ministers and members of the cabinet in recent years as a central British value, developing strategies for its better promotion – including developing educational training material for young people in secondary education – is a key component in ensuring its protection.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Appendix 1: Examples of best practice, statements of principle and codes of practice” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

A. Statement of Principles: University of Chicago

The University of Chicago made this statement in 2012:

The University of Chicago is an institution fully committed to the creation of knowledge across the spectrum of disciplines and professions, firm in its belief that a culture of intense inquiry and informed argument generates lasting ideas, and that the members of its community have a responsibility both to challenge and to listen.

Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service professor of law and former provost of the university, captures this ethos in this July 2012 statement of the aspirations of the University of Chicago: “Eighty years ago, a student organisation at the University of Chicago invited William Z. Foster, the Communist Party’s candidate for President, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest from critics both on and off campus. To those who condemned the University for allowing the event, University President Robert M. Hutchins responded that “our students . . . should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.” He insisted that the “cure” for ideas we oppose “lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition.” On a later occasion, Hutchins added that “free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, [and] that without it they cease to be universities.”
This incident captures both the spirit and the promise of the University of Chicago. Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the University, the University of Chicago fully respects and supports the freedom of all students, faculty and staff “to discuss any problem that presents itself,” free of interference.

This is not to say that this freedom is absolute. In narrowly-defined circumstances, the University may properly restrict expression, for example, that violates the law, is threatening, harassing, or defamatory, or invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests. Moreover, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.

Fundamentally, however, the University is committed to the principle that it may not restrict debate or deliberation because the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the members of the University community to make those judgments for themselves.

As a corollary to this commitment, members of the University community must also act in conformity with this principle. Although faculty, students and staff are free to criticize, contest and condemn the views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct, disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.

For members of the University community, as for the University itself, the proper response to ideas they find offensive, unwarranted and dangerous is not interference, obstruction, or suppression. It is, instead, to engage in robust counter-speech that challenges the merits of those ideas and exposes them for what they are. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university. The University of Chicago’s long-standing commitment to this principle lies at the very core of the University’s greatness.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

B. Code of Practice: Canterbury Christ Church University

Canterbury Christ Church University (‘the University’) introduces its Code of Practice with the following statement:

“Canterbury Christ Church University (‘the University’) is an academic community of staff and students. Central to this concept, and the University’s values as a Church of England Foundation, is the ability of all its members to challenge freely prevailing orthodoxies, to query the positions and views of others and to put forward ideas that may sometimes be radical in their formulation. The University recognises all forms of expression within the law.”
It also has a clear policy on external speakers:

“Some external speakers are known to hold contentious, even inflammatory or offensive, views. In some cases, their very presence on campus may be considered to be divisive and may lead to attempts by other groups to prevent the event taking place. Such speakers might include those subject to adverse media attention; and/or associated with a campaign or political pressure group; and/or a member of a group whose views may be deemed as being discriminatory or inflammatory to others. For the purposes of this Code, such speakers are regarded as controversial speakers, but their freedom of speech within the law is recognised.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Appendix 2: The legal landscape in the UK” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The rights to freedom of expression in the UK must be viewed in the context of the piecemeal constitutional framework that has evolved over time. The legal origins of these rights are found among: common law, domestic legislation, and international legal obligations of the UK. These rights are closely intertwined with law protecting us from discrimination and so some of the legislation overlaps and interrelates.

The UK higher education system is quasi-public, essentially functioning as a system of “private institutions operating in the public interest”. UK HEIs are autonomous institutions that tend to be operated by internal articles of governance.

There are four common forms of legal status for HEIs, namely establishment by:

royal charter through the Privy Council (particularly the pre-1992 universities)
a specific act of Parliament
the Companies Act as companies under guarantee
charitable trusts

However, a majority of HEIs are funded by public bodies, such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and are required to operate within the relevant regulatory framework.

The HEFCE is also responsible for monitoring compliance with the Prevent policy (see below), although this task shifts to the new Office for Students from April 2018.

Key relevant laws in detail

Public Order Act 1986
Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 creates the offences of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that cause or are likely to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress. Section 5 creates the similar offence of displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, whether in a public or a private place.

The Public Order Act 1986 makes it a criminal offence to stir up racial and religious hatred. Section 18 specifies that the crime of incitement to racial hatred is committed if a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending to stir up racial hatred, or where having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. Part 3A of the act sets out the crime of incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion or sexual orientation, which is committed if a person uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, with the intention to stir up religious hatred or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Education (No.2) Act 1986
Section 43(1) states that: “Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies [which includes universities] shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.”

The above duty particularly includes a duty to ensure that “the use of any premises” of the university is not denied to any person. It has been recognised that the duty only applies to the extent allowed within the bounds of the law, namely: “It does not in any way require universities to allow or facilitate speakers to break the law through inciting violence, inciting racial hatred, or glorifying acts of terrorism.”

HEIs are required to have a code of practice setting out the means by which they aim to achieve this duty.

Education Reform Act 1988
The Education Reform Act protects academic freedom and requires university commissioners to: ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions.

Education Act 1994
The Education Act requires HEIs to bring to the attention of students, at least once a year, the requirements of the act around freedom of speech in universities and colleges.

Equality Act 2010
The UK domestic law relating to free speech and freedom from discrimination has mostly been codified into the Equality Act 2010. The act brings together more than 116 pieces of legislation covering anti-discrimination law in the UK. Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Equality Act (the Higher Education Chapter) applies, in conjunction with Part 2 of the Equality Act, to HEIs, and specifically protects students (and prospective students) from discrimination, harassment or victimisation from the institution’s governing body. The Equality Act sets out a public sector equality duty under section149. This duty applies to all public bodies and requires that they take into account the need to “eliminate discrimination” and “advance equality of opportunity” when carrying out their public functions. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, established under section 6 of the Equality Act 2006 and subject to the provisions therein, is the UK’s national equality regulator. However, Chapter 2 of the Equality Act does not cover student unions.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015
Educational establishments have a duty to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”, as set out in s 26(1) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTSA). Section 31 of the CTSA adds that when carrying out their duty under section 26 of the CTSA, the HEI should also consider its duty to ensure freedom of speech, and the importance of academic freedom.

The Home Office has provided guidance for HEIs in exercising the duty under s 26 of the CTSA and balancing it with the right to freedom of speech. According to the guidance, in order to properly exercise the duty, HEI’s should have policies in place for external speakers and events, and have mechanisms to assess the risks posed, and how to mitigate those risks.

The CTSA imposes a legal obligation on UK HEIs to “take steps to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. This legislation forms part of the UK government’s Prevent duty, aimed at curbing home-grown terrorism. The most controversial aspect of legislation is that aimed at potential extremist speakers, “extremism” being defined as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The guidance issued in tandem with the act makes clear that it applies to both violent and non-violent extremism, which “can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit”.

Higher Education and Research Act 2017
The Higher Education and Research Act aims to create a new regulatory framework for higher education, increase competition and student choice, ensure students receive value for money, and strengthen the research sector. The act established the OfS and sets out its role as the new regulator and funding council for the higher education sector. The role includes ensuring that students receive value for money. The OfS will also hold HEIs registered under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to account regarding the state of free speech on their campuses, with the powers to penalise institutions that do not comply with their own freedom of speech code.

The Equality Act specifies the following bodies as owing the PSED:
(i) the governing body of an educational establishment maintained by an English local authority (within the meaning of section 162 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006);
(ii) the governing body of an institution in England within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992); and
(iii) the governing body of an institution in England within the higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91(5) of that Act).
The PSED has the effect of obliging public bodies, when exercising their powers and functions, to actively have regard to the following:
(i) eliminating discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other prohibited conduct;
(ii) advancing equality of opportunity; and
(iii) fostering good relations between people who have protected characteristics and those who do not.

The PSED is aimed at engraining equality into the exercise of all public functions such as policy and decision making and service delivery. The ultimate aim is to improve a HEI’s performance on equality, by for example preventing discrimination before it arises and creating the appropriate “culture”.

Prevent duty
There is a statutory duty on universities to tackle radicalisation through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Prevent is a counter-terrorism duty that applies across schools, further education colleges and universities. It requires educational institutions to deny a platform to those who might encourage terrorism.

Duties under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTSA) are imposed on “specified authorities”. “Specified authorities” are defined in Schedule 6 of the CTSA, and include in particular both the following types of higher education bodies (together, relevant higher education bodies RHEBs):

Governing bodies of qualifying institutions within the meaning given by section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (which includes most universities and higher education institutions); and
Private higher education institutions that are not in receipt of public funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) or the Higher Education Funding Council Wales (HEFCW) but have similar characteristics to those that are, which have at least 250 students (excluding those on distance-learning courses) undertaking courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).
RHEBs are subject to the duty contained in section 26 CTSA, which provides: “A specified authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.”

Under section 31 CTSA, in carrying out the duty imposed by section 26 CTSA, RHEBs are also required to have particular regard to:

ensuring freedom of speech (section 31(2)(a) CTSA), defined as the duty under section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to “take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers”; and
the importance of academic freedom (section 31(2)(b) CTSA), defined as the freedom referred to in section 202(2)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to “ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions”.

Guidance
The section 26 duty is supplemented by both general and sector-specific guidance, issued by the Secretary of State under section 29 CTSA. Relevant published guidance (in relation to RHEBs in England and Wales) includes:

The general Revised Prevent duty guidance: for England and Wales, issued 12 March 2015 and revised 16 July 2015; and
The sector-specific “Prevent duty guidance: for higher education institutions in England and Wales”.
(each available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance)

Other guidance has also been published on a non-statutory basis by a number of organisations which also sets out particular guidelines for RHEBs, including:

Universities UK, External Speakers in Higher Education Institutions, issued 22 November 2013, http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/external-speakers-in-higher-education-institutions.aspx
Universities UK, Oversight of Security-Sensitive Research Material in UK Universities, issued 26 October 2012, http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/oversight-of-security-sensitive-research-material-in-uk-universities.aspx
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Delivering the Prevent Duty in a Proportionate and Fair Way, issued 9 February 2017, https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/delivering-prevent-duty-proportionate-and-fair-way

Revised Prevent Duty Guidance: for England and Wales

This guidance provides specified authorities (including RHEBs) with a number of principles to be followed when balancing their section 26 and section 31 duties:

The starting point for complying with section 26 CTSA is to demonstrate an awareness and understanding of the risk of radicalisation, as it applies in the specified authority’s area or institution.
Three themes guide specified authorities (including RHEBs) in complying with the section 26 duty: effective leadership; working in partnership; and appropriate capabilities:
- Effective Leadership: Individuals in leadership positions should establish mechanisms, or use existing mechanisms, to understand the risk of radicalisation, communicate the importance of the section 26 duty and ensure that staff understand this risk and implement the duty;
- Working in Partnership: Specified authorities need to provide evidence of co-operation with local Prevent co-ordinators, the police, local authorities and multi-agency forums (e.g. Community Safety Partnerships), among others; and
- Appropriate Capabilities: Staff who engage with the public need to understand the meaning of radicalisation and how to obtain support for people under the risk of radicalising influences. Appropriate training needs to be provided to such staff.
- Whilst the Prevent programme must not involve covert activities against people, specified authorities may need to share personal information to ensure e.g. that a person at risk of radicalisation is given appropriate support. To protect the rights of individuals, information sharing agreements must be in place.
- Specified authorities will be expected to maintain appropriate records to show compliance with their responsibilities and provide reports when requested.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Prevent Duty Guidance: for higher education institutions in England and Wales
This sector-specific guidance provides RHEBs with a number of principles and guidelines in the context of specific issues which are particular to higher education institutions:

i. External Speakers and Events

RHEBs should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus or other RHEB premises, setting out clear requirements for events to proceed.
RHEBs must be particularly mindful to balance their section 26 duty against their section 31 duties to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom.
When deciding whether or not to host a speaker, RHEBs should consider whether the views expressed, or likely to be expressed, constitute extremist views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups. If this is the case, the event should not be allowed to proceed unless the RHEB is fully convinced that such a risk can be fully mitigated, e.g. by ensuring that speakers with extremist views can be challenged as part of the same event. If there is any doubt as to whether the risk can be fully mitigated, the event should not be allowed to proceed.
RHEBs are expected to put in place a system for assessing and rating risks associated with planned events. This should provide evidence as to whether an event should proceed or be cancelled and whether any risk mitigation action is required. An equivalent mechanism should be put in place in respect of events that are RHEB affiliated, funded or branded, but which take place off-campus.
RHEBs should demonstrate that staff members involved in the physical security of its premises have an awareness of the section 26 duty. This could often be achieved through engagement with the Association of University Chief Security Officers (AUCSO).

ii. Partnership

The senior management of the RHEB is expected to engage actively with partners such as police, BIS regional higher and further education Prevent coordinators as well as students.
With respect to larger or more complex RHEBs, there is an expectation that they should make use of internal mechanisms to share information about Prevent across faculties and establish a single point of contact for the operational delivery of Prevent.
RHEBs should have regular contact with their relevant Prevent co-ordinator.

iii. Risk assessment

RHEBs are expected to carry out a risk assessment as to where and how their students might be at risk of being drawn into terrorism, defined as including both violent and non-violent extremism.

iv. Action plan

Any institution that identifies a risk should develop a Prevent action plan, setting out the actions it will take to mitigate this risk.

v. Staff training

RHEBs will be required to demonstrate a willingness to undertake Prevent awareness training to help staff prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, enabling them to recognise vulnerability to this risk and understand what actions are available.
RHEBs should have robust internal and external procedures for sharing information about vulnerable individuals.

vi. Welfare and pastoral care/chaplaincy support

RHEBs should offer sufficient chaplaincy and pastoral support to all students and have clear and widely available policies for the use of faith related facilities such as prayer rooms.

vii. IT policies

RHEBs should have policies regarding the use of their IT equipment, with a specific reference to the section 26 duty. In particular, RHEBs should consider the use of filters as part of their overall Prevent strategy. In relation to accessing extremist-related materials for non-research purposes, reference is made to the guidance published by Universities UK.

viii. Student unions and societies

RHEBs should have clear policies setting out the activities allowed (and not allowed) to take place on campus, as well as any online activity directly related to the RHEB. This should set out expectations from student unions, in particular the need to challenge extremist ideas. Student unions should consider whether their staff would benefit from Prevent awareness training, provided by the Charity Commission.

[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”103857″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”This report was compiled with the support of Clifford Chance and Jonathan Price, Doughty Street Chambers.” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103827″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.cliffordchance.com/home.html”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”102960″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103830″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]

This report is also available as a PDF

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”103834″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Index-on-Censorship-Free-Speech-on-Campus-Report-Design-WebA.pdf”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Saudi Arabia: Kingdom must be held to account for suppression of dissent

26 Oct 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Saudi Arabia, Statements

Saudi journalist, Global Opinions columnist for the Washington Post, and former editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel Jamal Khashoggi offers remarks during POMED’s “Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia: A Deeper Look”. March 21, 2018, Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), Washington, DC.

Recognising the fundamental right to express our views, free from repression, we the undersigned civil society organisations call on the international community, including the United Nations, multilateral and regional institutions as well as democratic governments committed to the freedom of expression, to take immediate steps to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for grave human rights violations. The murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on 2 October is only one of many gross and systematic violations committed by the Saudi authorities inside and outside the country. As the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists approaches on 2 November, we strongly echo calls for an independent investigation into Khashoggi’s murder, in order to hold those responsible to account.

This case, coupled with the rampant arrests of human rights defenders, including journalists, scholars and women’s rights activists; internal repression; the potential imposition of the death penalty on demonstrators; and the findings of the UN Group of Eminent Experts report which concluded that the Coalition, led by Saudi Arabia, have committed acts that may amount to international crimes in Yemen, all demonstrate Saudi Arabia’s record of gross and systematic human rights violations. Therefore, our organisations further urge the UN General Assembly to suspend Saudi Arabia from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), in accordance with operative paragraph 8 of the General Assembly resolution 60/251.

Saudi Arabia has never had a reputation for tolerance and respect for human rights, but there were hopes that as Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman rolled out his economic plan (Vision 2030), and finally allowed women to drive, there would be a loosening of restrictions on women’s rights, and freedom of expression and assembly. However, prior to the driving ban being lifted in June, women human rights defenders received phone calls warning them to remain silent. The Saudi authorities then arrested dozens of women’s rights defenders (both female and male) who had been campaigning against the driving ban. The Saudi authorities’ crackdown against all forms of dissent has continued to this day.

Khashoggi criticised the arrests of human rights defenders and the reform plans of the Crown Prince, and was living in self-imposed exile in the US. On 2 October 2018, Khashoggi went to the Consulate in Istanbul with his fiancée to complete some paperwork, but never came out. Turkish officials soon claimed there was evidence that he was murdered in the Consulate, but Saudi officials did not admit he had been murdered until more than two weeks later.

It was not until two days later, on 20 October, that the Saudi public prosecution’s investigation released findings confirming that Khashoggi was deceased. Their reports suggested that he died after a “fist fight” in the Consulate, and that 18 Saudi nationals have been detained. King Salman also issued royal decrees terminating the jobs of high-level officials, including Saud Al-Qahtani, an advisor to the royal court, and Ahmed Assiri, deputy head of the General Intelligence Presidency. The public prosecution continues its investigation, but the body has not been found.

Given the contradictory reports from Saudi authorities, it is essential that an independent international investigation is undertaken.

On 18 October, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) called on Turkey to request that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres establish a UN investigation into the extrajudicial execution of Khashoggi.

On 15 October 2018, David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, and Dr. Agnès Callamard, the UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions, called for “an independent investigation that could produce credible findings and provide the basis for clear punitive actions, including the possible expulsion of diplomatic personnel, removal from UN bodies (such as the Human Rights Council), travel bans, economic consequences, reparations and the possibility of trials in third states.”

We note that on 27 September, Saudi Arabia joined consensus at the UN HRC as it adopted a new resolution on the safety of journalists (A/HRC/Res/39/6). We note the calls in this resolution for “impartial, thorough, independent and effective investigations into all alleged violence, threats and attacks against journalists and media workers falling within their jurisdiction, to bring perpetrators, including those who command, conspire to commit, aid and abet or cover up such crimes to justice.” It also “[u]rges the immediate and unconditional release of journalists and media workers who have been arbitrarily arrested or arbitrarily detained.”

Khashoggi had contributed to the Washington Post and Al-Watan newspaper, and was editor-in-chief of the short-lived Al-Arab News Channel in 2015. He left Saudi Arabia in 2017 as arrests of journalists, writers, human rights defenders and activists began to escalate. In his last column published in the Washington Post, he criticised the sentencing of journalist Saleh Al-Shehi to five years in prison in February 2018. Al-Shehi is one of more than 15 journalists and bloggers who have been arrested in Saudi Arabia since September 2017, bringing the total of those in prison to 29, according to RSF, while up to 100 human rights defenders and possibly thousands of activists are also in detention according to the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and Saudi partners including ALQST. Many of those detained in the past year had publicly criticised reform plans related to Vision 2030, noting that women would not achieve economic equality merely by driving.

Another recent target of the crackdown on dissent is prominent economist Essam Al-Zamel, an entrepreneur known for his writing about the need for economic reform. On 1 October 2018, the Specialised Criminal Court (SCC) held a secret session during which the Public Prosecution charged Al-Zamel with violating the Anti Cyber Crime Law by “mobilising his followers on social media.” Al-Zamel criticised Vision 2030 on social media, where he had one million followers. Al-Zamel was arrested on 12 September 2017 at the same time as many other rights defenders and reformists.

The current unprecedented targeting of women human rights defenders started in January 2018 with the arrest of Noha Al-Balawi due to her online activism in support of social media campaigns for women’s rights such as (#Right2Drive) or against the male guardianship system (#IAmMyOwnGuardian). Even before that, on 10 November 2017, the SCC in Riyadh sentenced Naimah Al-Matrod to six years in jail for her online activism.

The wave of arrests continued after the March session of the HRC and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) published its recommendations on Saudi Arabia. Loujain Al-Hathloul, was abducted in the Emirates and brought to Saudi Arabia against her will on 15 May 2018; followed by the arrest of Dr. Eman Al-Nafjan, founder and author of the Saudiwoman’s Weblog, who had previously protested the driving ban; and Aziza Al-Yousef, a prominent campaigner for women’s rights.

Four other women’s human rights defenders who were arrested in May 2018 include Dr. Aisha Al-Manae, Dr. Hessa Al-Sheikh and Dr. Madeha Al-Ajroush, who took part in the first women’s protest movement demanding the right to drive in 1990; and Walaa Al-Shubbar, a young activist well-known for her campaigning against the male guardianship system. They are all academics and professionals who supported women’s rights and provided assistance to survivors of gender-based violence. While they have since been released, all four women are believed to be still facing charges.

On 6 June 2018, journalist, editor, TV producer and woman human rights defender Nouf Abdulaziz was arrested after a raid on her home. Following her arrest, Mayya Al-Zahrani published a letter from Abdulaziz, and was then arrested herself on 9 June 2018, for publishing the letter.

On 27 June 2018, Hatoon Al-Fassi, a renowned scholar, and associate professor of women’s history at King Saud University, was arrested. She has long been advocating for the right of women to participate in municipal elections and to drive, and was one of the first women to drive the day the ban was lifted on 24 June 2018.

Twice in June, UN special procedures called for the release of women’s rights defenders. On 27 June 2018, nine independent UN experts stated, “In stark contrast with this celebrated moment of liberation for Saudi women, women’s human rights defenders have been arrested and detained on a wide scale across the country, which is truly worrying and perhaps a better indication of the Government’s approach to women’s human rights.” They emphasised that women human rights defenders “face compounded stigma, not only because of their work as human rights defenders, but also because of discrimination on gender grounds.”

Nevertheless, the arrests of women human rights defenders continued with Samar Badawi and Nassima Al-Sadah on 30 July 2018. They are being held in solitary confinement in a prison that is controlled by the Presidency of State Security, an apparatus established by order of King Salman on 20 July 2017. Badawi’s brother Raif Badawi is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for his online advocacy, and her former husband Waleed Abu Al-Khair, is serving a 15-year sentence. Abu Al-Khair, Abdullah Al-Hamid, and Mohammad Fahad Al-Qahtani (the latter two are founding members of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association – ACPRA) were jointly awarded the Right Livelihood Award in September 2018. Yet all of them remain behind bars.

Relatives of other human rights defenders have also been arrested. Amal Al-Harbi, the wife of prominent activist Fowzan Al-Harbi, was arrested by State Security on 30 July 2018 while on the seaside with her children in Jeddah. Her husband is another jailed member of ACPRA. Alarmingly, in October 2018, travel bans were imposed against the families of several women’s rights defenders, such as Aziza Al-Yousef, Loujain Al-Hathloul and Eman Al-Nafjan.

In another alarming development, at a trial before the SCC on 6 August 2018, the Public Prosecutor called for the death penalty for Israa Al-Ghomgam who was arrested with her husband Mousa Al-Hashim on 6 December 2015 after they participated in peaceful protests in Al-Qatif. Al-Ghomgam was charged under Article 6 of the Cybercrime Act of 2007 in connection with social media activity, as well as other charges related to the protests. If sentenced to death, she would be the first woman facing the death penalty on charges related to her activism. The next hearing is scheduled for 28 October 2018.

The SCC, which was set up to try terrorism cases in 2008, has mostly been used to prosecute human rights defenders and critics of the government in order to keep a tight rein on civil society.

On 12 October 2018, UN experts again called for the release of all detained women human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia. They expressed particular concern about Al-Ghomgam’s trial before the SCC, saying, “Measures aimed at countering terrorism should never be used to suppress or curtail human rights work.” It is clear that the Saudi authorities have not acted on the concerns raised by the special procedures – this non-cooperation further brings their membership on the HRC into disrepute.

Many of the human rights defenders arrested this year have been held in incommunicado detention with no access to families or lawyers. Some of them have been labelled traitors and subjected to smear campaigns in the state media, escalating the possibility they will be sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Rather than guaranteeing a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders at a time of planned economic reform, the Saudi authorities have chosen to escalate their repression against any dissenting voices.

Our organisations reiterate our calls to the international community to hold Saudi Arabia accountable and not allow impunity for human rights violations to prevail.

We call on the international community, and in particular the UN, to:

Take action to ensure there is an international, impartial, prompt, thorough, independent and effective investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi;
Ensure Saudi Arabia be held accountable for the murder of Khashoggi and for its systematic violations of human rights;
Call a Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the recent wave of arrests and attacks against journalists, human rights defenders and other dissenting voices in Saudi Arabia;
Take action at the UN General Assembly to suspend Saudi Arabia’s membership of the Human Rights Council; and
Urge the government of Saudi Arabia to implement the below recommendations.

We call on the authorities in Saudi Arabia to:

Produce the body of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi and invite independent international experts to oversee investigations into his murder; cooperate with all UN mechanisms; and ensure that those responsible for his death, including those who hold command responsibility, are brought to justice;
Immediately quash the convictions of all human rights defenders, including women and men advocating for gender equality, and drop all charges against them;
Immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders, writers, journalists and prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia whose detention is a result of their peaceful and legitimate work in the promotion and protection of human rights including women’s rights;
Institute a moratorium on the death penalty; including as punishment for crimes related to the exercise of rights to freedom of opinion and expression, and peaceful assembly;
Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders and journalists in Saudi Arabia are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities and public interest reporting without fear of reprisal;
Immediately implement the recommendations made by the UN Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen; and
Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and bring all national laws limiting the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association into compliance with international human rights standards.

Signed,

Access Now
Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) – France
Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) – Germany
Al-Marsad – Syria
ALQST for Human Rights
ALTSEAN-Burma
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHRS) – Jordan
Amman Forum for Human Rights
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Armanshahr/OPEN ASIA
ARTICLE 19
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Asociación Libre de Abogadas y Abogados (ALA)
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
Association malienne des droits de l’Homme (AMDH)
Association mauritanienne des droits de l’Homme (AMDH)
Association nigérienne pour la défense des droits de l’Homme (ANDDH)
Association of Tunisian Women for Research on Development
Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID)
Awan Awareness and Capacity Development Organization
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law – Tajikistan
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)
Canadian Center for International Justice
Caucasus Civil Initiatives Center (CCIC)
Center for Civil Liberties – Ukraine
Center for Prisoners’ Rights
Center for the Protection of Human Rights “Kylym Shamy” – Kazakhstan
Centre oecuménique des droits de l’Homme (CEDH) – Haïti
Centro de Políticas Públicas y Derechos Humanos (EQUIDAD) – Perú
Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH) – Guatemala
Citizen Center for Press Freedom
Citizens’ Watch – Russia
CIVICUS
Civil Society Institute (CSI) – Armenia
Code Pink
Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic
Comité de acción jurídica (CAJ) – Argentina
Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU) – Ecuador
Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos – Dominican Republic
Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) -Northern Ireland
Committee to Protect Journalists
Committee for Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia
Damascus Center for Human Rights in Syria
Danish PEN
DITSHWANELO – The Botswana Center for Human Rights
Dutch League for Human Rights (LvRM)
Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center – Azerbaijan
English PEN
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR)
FIDH within the framework of the Observatory for the protection of human rights defenders
Finnish League for Human Rights
Freedom Now
Front Line Defenders
Fundación regional de asesoría en derechos humanos (INREDH) – Ecuador
Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) – Uganda
Global Voices Advox
Groupe LOTUS (RDC)
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Hellenic League for Human Rights (HLHR)
Human Rights Association (IHD) – Turkey
Human Rights Center (HRCIDC) – Georgia
Human Rights Center “Viasna” – Belarus
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
Human Rights Concern (HRCE) – Eritrea
Human Rights in China
Human Rights Center Memorial
Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan”
Human Rights Sentinel
IFEX
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression (IFoX) – Turkey
Institut Alternatives et Initiatives citoyennes pour la Gouvernance démocratique (I-AICGD) – DR Congo
International Center for Supporting Rights and Freedoms (ICSRF) – Switzerland
Internationale Liga für Menscherechte
International Human Rights Organisation “Fiery Hearts Club” – Uzbekistan
International Legal Initiative (ILI) – Kazakhstan
International Media Support (IMS)
International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR)
International Press Institute
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Internet Law Reform and Dialogue (iLaw)
Iraqi Association for the Defense of Journalists’ Rights
Iraqi Hope Association
Italian Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Justice for Iran
Karapatan – Philippines
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Khiam Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture
KontraS
Latvian Human Rights Committee
Lao Movement for Human Rights
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
League for the Defense of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)
Legal Clinic “Adilet” – Kyrgyzstan
Ligue algérienne de défense des droits de l’Homme (LADDH)
Ligue centrafricaine des droits de l’Homme
Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH) Belgium
Ligue des Electeurs (LE) – DRC
Ligue ivoirienne des droits de l’Homme (LIDHO)
Ligue sénégalaise des droits humains (LSDH)
Ligue tchadienne des droits de l’Homme (LTDH)
Maison des droits de l’Homme (MDHC) – Cameroon
Maharat Foundation
MARUAH – Singapore
Middle East and North Africa Media Monitoring Observatory
Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers, International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)
Movimento Nacional de Direitos Humanos (MNDH) – Brasil
Muslims for Progressive Values
Mwatana Organization for Human Rights
National Syndicate of Tunisian Journalists
No Peace Without Justice
Norwegian PEN
Odhikar
Open Azerbaijan Initiative
Organisation marocaine des droits humains (OMDH)
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
People’s Watch
PEN America
PEN Canada
PEN International
PEN Lebanon
PEN Québec
Promo-LEX – Moldova
Public Foundation – Human Rights Center “Kylym Shamy” – Kyrgyzstan
Rafto Foundation for Human Rights
RAW in WAR (Reach All Women in War)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Right Livelihood Award Foundation
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Sahrawi Media Observatory to document human rights violations
SALAM for Democracy and Human Rights (SALAM DHR)
Scholars at Risk (SAR)
Sham Center for Democratic Studies and Human Rights in Syria
Sisters’ Arab Forum for Human Rights (SAF) – Yemen
Solicitors International Human Rights Group
Syrian Center for Legal Studies and Research
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Tanmiea – Iraq
Tunisian Association to Defend Academic Values
Tunisian Association to Defend Individual Rights
Tunisian Association of Democratic Women
Tunis Center for Press Freedom
Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights
Tunisian League to Defend Human Rights
Tunisian Organization against Torture
Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights (UAF)
Urnammu
Vietnam Committee on Human Rights
Vigdis Freedom Foundation
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition
Women’s Center for Culture & Art – United Kingdom
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) within the framework of the Observatory for the protection of human rights defenders
Yemen Center for Human Rights
Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZimRights)
17Shubat For Human Rights

Cuba’s first alternative art biennial: “We built an inclusive space of free creation and true collaboration”

08 Jun 18 | Americas, Artistic Freedom, Awards, Cuba, Fellowship, Fellowship 2018, News and features

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Cuban artist Yasser Castellanos

Despite official efforts to stop it in its tracks, Cuba saw the successful completion of its first independent art biennial, organised without the support of the state, on 15 May. Artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara and curator Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, members of the Museum of Dissidence, winner of the 2018 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for art, organised the ten-day #00Bienal de la Habana, which included over 170 artists, writers, musicians and theorists across nine different exhibitions in artists’ homes and studios around the country’s capital.

“Cuban culture is centralised culture and the government has absolute control,” Nuñez Leyva tells Index on Censorship. “The Ministry of Culture, together with all its branches such as the Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba and the National Council of Plastic Arts, are tentacles of the Ministry of the Interior, so all independent proposals, whether cultural, ecological or campaigns against gender violence, for example, are cursed with all the might of the government-controlled media.”

Even at schools pupils are served up propaganda intent on turning them against non-state-approved artists. Some art school students were shown a video portraying Otero Alcantara as a mercenary. “Such a campaign inevitably generates fear around independent projects which then suffer due to lack of both social and economic support,” Nuñez Leyva says.

Economic support was one of the biggest obstacles for #00Bienal. “At the beginning, we thought that we would produce it with what we had at hand, but along the way we realised that we needed more,” Nuñez Leyva says. So a Gofundme campaign was set up, which raised $6,574. “But this wasn’t easy: the impact of the US blockade, our isolation from the world of networks and the impossibility of having credit cards made the process anguishing.”

Otero Alcantara was also imprisoned without cause on several occasions as part of the Cuban government’s campaign of harassment. Others who took part in #00Bienal, whether Cuban or foreign, received similar harassment. Many were even denied entry to the country, including the Cuban-American artist Coco Fusco.

When #00Biennial was announced in September 2017, the Cuban government immediately began to show its discontent through its cultural institutions. In an official declaration they branded the organisers as “unscrupulous people”. In response, #00Bienal’s first slogan was: “From the official to the unscrupulous.”

As culture is so tightly controlled in Cuba, only artists seen to be working in the interests of the regime can operate without restriction. Approved artists usually receive perks, something that gives them a higher status in society. Some artists risked all of this by taking part in #00Bienal. “The system used the worst blackmail against them because they gave the event a legitimacy that the government did not want,” Otero Alcantara says. “These artists were threatened by having their government accreditation taken away. Without this, they would find themselves without ‘official work’.”

Government agents stalked the exhibitions while the organisers were accused of being in league with Cuba’s enemies. How does one respond to such accusations? “We responded by making an event that is as honest as possible, with a wide range of manifestations and artistic expressions that reflected the reality of Cuban art,” Nuñez Leyva says. “We responded with a list of more than 170 participants, not only Cubans, but from Mexico, Spain, Germany, the United States, Romania, Angola, Colombia, Denmark, Ukraine, Brazil, Venezuela, among them high-profile artists that Cuban institutions admire and collaborated with.”

The authorities even tried to prohibit the public from attending, sometimes successfully. Flyers and stickers were also confiscated. “But none of these actions were ever going to stop the energy of the event,” Otero Alcantara says.

“Despite all this pressure, the event went ahead, demonstrating that there is a group of people who are very courageous and have a real commitment culture,” Nuñez Leyva says. #00Bienal helped revive “a spirit of alternative rebellion” through the involvement of “countless numbers of totally unknown artists” that the state would never endorse.

For Otero Alcantara, the event’s success lies in the cohesion it created between artists, scholars and art enthusiasts, something that is unprecedented in the world of Cuban art. “We built an inclusive space of free creation and true collaboration between the people involved, exhibited the work of artists who were never going to have space in an official Havana Biennial and set a precedent for future projects,” he says. “This is one more step towards eliminating a fear that exists throughout Cuba.”

According to the organisers, the terms “revolution” or “revolutionary” have been hijacked and distorted by the Cuban regime. Such deformation has taken root so deep in the imagination of the Cuban people that just by mentioning the word “dissidence” is enough to be shunned, they explain.

“The #00Bienal was a humanistic project that brought to the fore essential values for any society such as unity, solidarity and collaboration,” Nuñez Leyva says. “The event also favoured the less privileged and created beauty and dialogue in favour of a new Cuba.”

The organisers of #00Bienal are under no illusions that life for Cuba’a dissident artists will magically become any easier under Cuba’s new president, Miguel Díaz‑Canel, who took over from Raúl Castro in April 2018. “The Cuban regime is more than any Castro,” Nuñez Leyva says. “It is a system based on a group of families that live both inside and outside the island, who have control over everything, which ultimately contributes to their own wealth.” This corrupt system relies on the deception of a people who have been left without even the strength even to protect themselves against poverty, she adds. “This situation leaves us with little hope, but we have to keep working.”

Otero Alcantara and Nuñez Leyva’s now want to show that #00Bienal wasn’t just a one-off, but is a serious project with longevity. “We will see if it is possible in two years to achieve something similar,” Otero Alcantara says.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1528443291288-dfd45bff-0a16-7″ include=”100716,100712,100711,100710,100713,100709,100708,100707,100706,100704,100715,100705″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Artists, writers, musicians and theorists who took part in #00Bienal

Amaury Pacheco (Cuba), Iris Ruiz (Cuba), Coco Fusco (Cuba-USA), Tania Bruguera (Cuba), Reynier Leyva Novo (Cuba), Ernesto Oroza (Cuba), Gerardo Mosquera (Cuba), Katherine Bisquet (Cuba), Jose Ernesto Alonso, Yuri Obregón (Cuba), Alein Somonte (Cuba), Alejandro Barreras (Cuba), Anaeli Ibarra (Cuba), Alejandro Taquechel (Cuba), Ariel Maceo Tellez (Cuba), Aryam (Cuba), Aldeide Delgado (Cuba), Armando Cuspinera (Mexico), Antonio Mas (Spain), Alicia Torres (Spain), Ana Olema (Cuba), Alexis Ruiseco (Cuba-USA), Alexandru Raevschi (Germany), Andrés X (Cuba), Alain Aspiolea (Cuba), Alexandre Arrechea (Cuba), Antoni Muntadas (Spain), Biennial Project (USA), Boris González Arenas (Cuba), Colectivo Corason i uevo (Antonio A. Orta, Maykel Almenteros y Pedro Pablo Bacallao) (Cuba), Colectivo Guerrillas Girls, Celia y Yunior (Cuba), Colectivo 2.50 (Ana Gómez, Argelia Leodegarío, Marco Antonio Rodríguez, Itandehuitl Orta, Yuvia Pérez, Esmeralda Pérez) (Mexico), Carlos Manuel Álvarez (Cuba), Clara Astiasarán, Chu (Cuba), David de Omni, David León (Cuba), Danilo Maldonado (El Sexto), Diego Gil (Spain), Eliecer Jiménez Almeida (Cuba), Erish (Mexico), El Oficio (Cuba), Ernesto Hernandez Busto, Enfori García, Filipa César (Portugal), Fabián (2+2 =5) (Cuba), Francis Sánchez (Cuba), Francisco Méndez (Mexico), Francisco Masó (Cuba), Fabian Martínez, Filio Gálvez, Fredric Snitzer, Gabriel Coto (Cuba), Gerardo Stübing (España), Gean Moreno, Henri Eric Hernández (Cuba), Hamlet Lavastida (Cuba), Héctor Trujillo (Cuba), Hugo Patao, Italo Expósito (Cuba), Iván de la Nuez (Cuba), Jesús Hdez-Güero (Cuba), Jesús Benítez (Mexico), José Luis Marrero (Cuba), Josvan Gonzalez Agramonte (Cuba), Julián Yunda Yepes (Mexico), Jenifer Acuña (Cuba), Juan Melo (Colombia), Juan Carlos Alvarez Miranda (Cuba), Jean-Lorin Sterian (Romania), José Bedia (Cuba), Julio César Llopiz (Cuba), Javier Marimón, José Manuel Mesías (Cuba), Keyezua (Angola), Kevin Arrow, Lía Villares (Cuba), Luis Trápaga (Cuba), Luiso, Leandro Villanueva (Sam 33) (Cuba), Lester Dubé (Cuba), Lala Misosniky (Romania), La Alianza (Cuba), Liliam Dooley, Leandro Feal (Cuba), Lourdes Porrata, Miquel García (Spain), Marisol Maza (Mexico), Marcel Marquez (Cuba), Marianna Liosi (Germany), MO colectivo (Mariam Abrajim y Octavio Salazar) (Colombia), Magdiel Aspillaga, Mysora García, Nonardo Perea (Cuba), Natalia López (Colombia), Osmel Almaguer Delgado (Cuba), Osmany Carratalá (Cuba), Oscar Salamanca (Colombia), Orlando Hernández (Cuba), Pablo Pinto (Colombia), Polyanna Morgana (Brazil), Political Architecture: Critical Sustainability (PA:CS) (Denmark), Peter Menéndez, Rafael Carabano (Venezuela), Raúl Meriño (Cuba), Ras Yoe, Ricardo Figueredo, Rodolfo Peraza (Cuba), Rafael Domenech, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Svitlana Biedarieva (Ukraine), Soandry del Río (Cuba), Sandra Ceballos (Cuba), Santiago Alvarez Méndez (Colombia), Sandor (Cuba), Thiago Morandi (Brazil), Tomás Sánchez (Cuba), Tomas Vu, Tonel (Cuba), unx Pardo Ibarra (Colombia), Ulises Valdés (Mexico), Walfrido Valera (Cuba), Yaima Pardo (Cuba), Yasser Castellanos (Cuba), Yesica Suárez (Colombia), Yulier P. (Cuba), Yoenis Eloy Mayeta (Cuba), Yimi Konclase (Cuba), Yvelin Buenrostro (Mexico), Yucef Merhi (Venezuela), Yornel Martínez (Cuba), Yali Romagoza (Cuba), Yanier H. Palao (Cuba).[/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:1528443291296-0ad2c295-a239-7″ taxonomies=”104″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Privacy and cookie policy

21 May 18

Introduction

1.1 This website (https://www.indexoncensorship.org) is owned and operated by Index on Censorship (Writers & Scholars Educational Trust and Writers & Scholars International Ltd). Our mailing address is 3rd Floor, 86-90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE.

1.2 Writers & Scholars Educational Trust is a registered charity (number 325003). Writers & Scholars International Ltd is a limited company registered in England and Wales (company registration number 01157814).

1.3 If you have any other questions about this policy you can write to us at our mailing address – 3rd Floor, 86-90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE – or email [email protected].

1.4 Index on Censorship is committed to safeguarding the privacy of visitors to www.indexoncensorship.org; we strive to minimise the amount of information we collect or allow to be collected by third parties on our website; in this policy, we explain how we will treat your personal information.

1.5 We will ask you to consent to our use of cookies in accordance with the terms of this policy when you first visit our website. By using our website and agreeing to this policy, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with the terms of this policy.

1.6 The UK Information Commissioner Office can be contacted by phone 0303 123 1113 or online at https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Collecting personal information

2.1 We use third party processors to deliver services on our site at your direction. For example, event ticketing through Eventbrite (Privacy Policy), donations processing through PayPal (Privacy Policy) or email newsletter subscriptions through Mailchimp (Privacy Policy).

2.2 We may collect, store and use the following kinds of personal information:

(a) information about your computer and about your visits to and use of this website including your IP address, geographical location, browser type and version, operating system, referral source, length of visit, page views and website navigation paths

(b) Information that you provide to us for the purpose of subscribing to our email notifications and/or newsletter including your name and email address

(f) Information contained in or relating to any communication that you send to us or send through our website including the communication content and metadata associated with the communication

(g) When visitors leave comments on the site we collect the data shown in the comments form, and also the visitor’s IP address and browser user agent string to help spam detection.

(h) Any other personal information that you choose to send to us; and provide details of other personal information collected.

2.3 Before you disclose to us the personal information of another person, you must obtain that person’s consent to both the disclosure and the processing of that personal information in accordance with this policy.

Using personal information

3.1 Personal information submitted to us through our website will be used for the purposes specified in this policy. Your information will not be published without your explicit permission.

3.2 We may use your personal information to:

(a) Administer our website and business

(b) Enable your use of the services available on our website

(c) Send you our weekly newsletter, monthly events email and periodic campaign updates, where you have specifically agreed to this; You can inform us at any time if you no longer want to receive email from Index on Censorship by emailing [email protected] or clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email communication.

(d) Deal with enquiries and complaints made by you relating to our website

(e) Keep our website secure and prevent fraud

3.3 If you submit personal information for publication on our website, we will publish and otherwise use that information in accordance with the licence you grant to us.

3.4 We will not supply your personal information to any third party for the purpose of their or any other third party’s direct marketing.

Disclosing personal information

4.1 We may disclose your personal information to any of our employees, officers, insurers, professional advisers, agents, suppliers or subcontractors insofar as reasonably necessary for the purposes set out in this policy.

4.2 We may disclose your personal information:

(a) To the extent that we are required to do so by law;

4.3 Except as provided in this policy, we will not provide your personal information to third parties.

International data transfers

5.1 Information that we collect may be stored and processed in and transferred between any of the countries in which we operate in order to enable us to use the information in accordance with this policy.

5.2 Information that we collect may be transferred to the following countries which do not have data protection laws equivalent to those in force in the European Economic Area: the United States of America

5.3 Personal information that you publish on our website or submit for publication on our website may be available, via the internet, around the world. We cannot prevent the use or misuse of such information by others.

5.4 You expressly agree to the transfers of personal information described in this Section 5.

Retaining personal information

6.1 This Section 6 sets out our data retention policies and procedure, which are designed to help ensure that we comply with our legal obligations in relation to the retention and deletion of personal information.

6.2 Personal information that we process for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

6.3 Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Section 6, we will retain documents (including electronic documents) containing personal data:

(a) To the extent that we are required to do so by law;

(b) If we believe that the documents may be relevant to any ongoing or prospective legal proceedings; and

(c) In order to establish, exercise or defend our legal rights (including providing information to others for the purposes of fraud prevention and reducing credit risk).

Security of personal information

7.1 We will take reasonable technical and organisational precautions to prevent the loss, misuse or alteration of your personal information.

7.2 We use a variety of technical means to protect your date, including encryption, security measures and robust intrusion defences.

7.3 All electronic financial transactions entered into through our website will be protected by encryption technology.

7.4 All staff are fully trained on the handling of your personal data through the Index on Censorship General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) manual and our internal information security policies.

7.5 We will carry out periodic audits of our information handling procedures and adjust accordingly.

7.6 You acknowledge that the transmission of information over the internet is inherently insecure, and we cannot guarantee the security of data sent over the internet.

Amendments

8.1 We may update this policy from time to time by publishing a new version on our website.

8.2 You should check this page occasionally to ensure you are happy with any changes to this policy.

8.3 We may notify you of changes to this policy by email

Your rights

9.1 You may instruct us to provide you with any personal information we hold about you by contacting [email protected]. You may request that we delete any personal information we hold about you; provision of such information will be subject to:

(a) The supply of appropriate evidence of your identity for this purpose, we will usually accept a photocopy of your passport certified by a solicitor or bank plus an original copy of a utility bill showing your current address.

9.2 We may withhold personal information that you request to the extent permitted by law.

9.3 You may instruct us at any time not to process your personal information for marketing purposes.

9.4 In practice, you will expressly agree in advance to our use of your personal information for communications from Index on Censorship through a double opt-in process.

9.5 If you have an account on this site, or have left comments on articles, you can request to receive an exported file of the personal data we hold about you, including any data you have provided to us. You can also request that we erase any personal data we hold about you. This does not include any data we are obliged to keep for administrative, legal, or security purposes.

Third party websites and content

10.1 Our website includes hyperlinks to, and details of, third party websites.

10.2 Articles on this site may include embedded content (e.g. videos (YouTube (Privacy Policy)), images (Flickr (Privacy Policy)), maps (Ushahidi (Privacy Policy); Google (Privacy Policy)), etc.). Embedded content from other websites behaves in the exact same way as if the visitor has visited the other website. These websites may collect data about you, use cookies, embed additional third-party tracking, and monitor your interaction with that embedded content, including tracing your interaction with the embedded content if you have an account and are logged in to that website.

10.3 This site uses third-party plugins to provide services for your use, including but not limited to social media sharing, forms that allow you to contact us and make donations.

10.4 Index on Censorship may receive information about you when you interact with a third party supporting an Index activity. (For example, when you book a ticket to an Index hosted event or when you make a donation.) This could include your name, address and contact information (email, telephone) from providers such as Eventbrite or PayPal . This information will be treated in accordance with the terms of this policy.

10.5 We have no control over, and are not responsible for, the privacy policies and practices of third parties.

Updating information

11.1 Please let us know if the personal information that we hold about you needs to be corrected, updated or removed. You can do this by contacting [email protected]

Data breaches

12.1 In the event of a data breach we will notify the Information Commissioner of the incident. We will also notify you if your personal data has been compromised.

About cookies

13.1 A cookie is a file containing an identifier a string of letters and numbers that is sent by a web server to a web browser and is stored by the browser. The identifier is then sent back to the server each time the browser requests a page from the server.

13.2 Cookies may be either “persistent” cookies or “session” cookies: a persistent cookie will be stored by a web browser and will remain valid until its set expiry date, unless deleted by the user before the expiry date; a session cookie, on the other hand, will expire at the end of the user session, when the web browser is closed.

13.3 Cookies do not typically contain any information that personally identifies a user, but personal information that we store about you may be linked to the information stored in and obtained from cookies.

13.4 Cookies can be used by web servers to identify and track users as they navigate different pages on a website and identify users returning to a website.

Our cookies

14.1 We use both session and persistent cookies on our website.

14.2 The names of the cookies that we use on our website, and the purposes for which they are used, are set out below:

(a) We use cookies on our website to recognise a computer when a user visits the website, track users as they navigate the website, improve the website’s usability, analyse the use of the website, administer the website, prevent fraud and improve the security of the website.

(b) Third parties may track users on our website when they interact with specific site functions such as social media sharing buttons or embedded video.

Analytics cookies

15.1 We use Google Analytics to analyse the use of our website.

15.2 Our analytics service provider generates statistical and other information about website use by means of cookies.

15.3 The information generated relating to our website is used to create reports about the use of our website.

15.4 Our analytics service provider’s privacy policy is available at: http://www.google.com/policies/privacy.

Blocking cookies

16.1 Most browsers allow you to refuse to accept cookies; for example:

(a) in Internet Explorer you can block cookies using the cookie handling override settings available by clicking “Tools”, “Internet Options”, “Privacy” and then “Advanced”;

(b) in Firefox you can block all cookies by clicking “Tools”, “Options”, “Privacy”, selecting “Use custom settings for history” from the dropdown menu, and unticking “Accept cookies from sites”; and

(c) in Chrome, you can block all cookies by accessing the “Customise and control” menu, and clicking “Settings”, “Show advanced settings” and “Content settings”, and then selecting “Block sites from setting any data” under the “Cookies” heading.

16.2 Blocking all cookies could have a negative impact upon the usability of many websites.

16.3 If you block cookies, you may not be able to use all the features on our website.

Deleting cookies

17.1 You can delete cookies already stored on your computer; for example:

(a) In Internet Explorer, you must manually delete cookie files you can find instructions for doing so at http://windows.microsoft.com/engb/internet-explorer/delete-manage-cookies#ie=ie-11;

(b) in Firefox you can delete cookies by clicking “Tools”, “Options” and “Privacy”, then selecting “Use custom settings for history” from the drop-down menu, clicking “Show Cookies”, and then clicking “Remove All Cookies”; and

(c) in Chrome, you can delete all cookies by accessing the “Customise and control” menu, and clicking “Settings”, “Show advanced settings” and “Clear browsing data”, and then selecting “Cookies and other site and plug-in data” before clicking “Clear browsing data”.

17.2 Deleting cookies could have a negative impact on the usability of many websites.

18. Version history

18.1 Page Updates

This page was updated on 27/1/2022. Change made: New mailing address.

This page was updated on 22/03/2019. Change made: New address for Index on Censorship

This page was created on 21/05/2018.

An earlier version of this privacy policy was previously posted at this address: https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/05/privacy-cookie-policy/

« Older Entries

Next Entries »