07 Nov 12 | Uncategorized
There are clearly parallels between investigative journalists and artists who reveal uncomfortable truths. But when controversy breaks, artists are much more exposed because they use their own personal language to tell the story, and bring their own experience and imagination into the narrative.
To cater for their needs, Artsfex, the first international civil society network dedicated to promoting free expression for artists, has recently been created.
“When the international community places emphasis on the protection of freedom of speech, it generally focuses on the freedom of media and literature,” says Ole Reitov, Programme Manager at Freemuse and one of Artsfex’s promoters.
International human rights organisations include repression of media and media professionals in their annual and country reports on freedom of expression. However, they rarely document repression of artists or cultural workers.
Reitov adds:
But artistic expression is under pressure from many sides and it is frequently in the centre of conflicts between different interest groups. This is where Artsfex comes in. We hope to be able to not only document violations but support artists at risk.
Artsfex has been designed to join up pockets of campaigning that are often ignited in the wake of controversy, to amplify, reinforce and add weight to the artists’ voice when they stand up to authorities. It aims to facilitate exchange between artists and address that sense of isolation, by bringing people who have been through the fire together with those that are in the thick of it.
The network, which will recruit campaigning organisations and artists networks from around the world, aims to form an executive body that will call governments to account. Index on Censorship is part of this network, which connects, according to Reitov, “a bit over 1,200 organisations all over the world”.
“We have the ambition to analyse the mechanisms and effects of arts censorship,” says Reitov. “Several Artsfex members will take part in a UN meeting on artistic freedom in Geneva in December this year. The UN Special Rapporteur on culture (Farida Shaheed) has decided to make a report on artistic freedom, and all UN member states are now receiving a questionnaire on how they regulate the arts and protect artistic freedom. Our hope is that in the future Artsfex will help keeping governments accountable to their treatment of artists.”
The launch of Artsfex took place against the backdrop All that is banned is desired — the first ever international conference on artistic freedom of expression in Oslo last month.
The conference organisers, Freemuse and Fritt Ord, had decided to turn the platform over exclusively to the stories of practicing artists who had experienced censorship. Over two days, 25 artists from Burma, North Korea, Egypt, Cuba, Russia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, China, Turkey, Tibet and Mali gave their accounts or performed.
Each story told how a play, an album, a painting, an installation, an image or an idea had unleashed extraordinary levels of violence, hostility, threats, and prejudice towards the artist. The aggressors took all forms from corporate community, government or religious groups. Each artist’s decision not to capitulate, to stand up for their right to express themselves brought them into situations of extreme personal danger and harm, risking their life and health, liberty, career, family and community relations.
A man is in solitary confinement, in a tiny, windowless cell. By straining through the bars of his cell, he can just see the edges of moonlight. He paces restlessly and in a moment of inspiration, takes the plastic bowl — the only concession to comfort in his cell — places it carefully just outside the bars and pees into it. As the pee settles, the ripples and bubbles subside, the reflected image of the full moon comes into sharp focus. The prisoner smiles at the moon.
This is the synopsis one of the short films shown at the opening presentation of the conference. The film was made by Burmese comedian, film maker and activist Zarganar, who, with fellow film-maker Min Htin Ko Ko Gyi, told of the power of art and the imagination to withstand brutal treatment by the military junta in Burma.
Bringing these artists together for the first time was an achievement, the result of four years of research and planning. The shared ground between them gave rise to countless connections, forging plans and future collaborations. Four of the participating artists will join an artist roundtable discussion Index has organised in the lead up to our Taking the Offensive conference in London on 29 January 2013 at the Southbank Centre, to defend artistic freedom of expression.
In nearly all cases the artists acknowledged a deep sense of isolation while the media storms, community conflicts and lawsuits raged around and because of them. Despite the support from family, friends, other artists, the theatre or the gallery and in some cases the general public, each artist had to find an extraordinary level of personal courage that was needed to keep going day after day, to stand by the integrity and importance of what they wanted to say.
“Freemuse has already documented more than hundred incidents of arts censorship in the past six months…. My feeling is that this is unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg,” concludes Reitov.
Julia Farrington is Head of Arts at Index on Censorship
19 Oct 12 | Uncategorized
A peaceful protest against the Innocence of Muslims in London – Brian Minkoff/Demotix
The Innocence of Muslims controversy put a spotlight on whether offensive online content should be censored or criminalised, as violence in Egypt, Libya and beyond meant many were tempted to argue for the removal of the video from the web.
Most states have laws to control clear and direct incitements to violence; but causing offence is neither an incitement to violence nor a reason to respond with violence. Yet since the initial protests, many countries have queued up to ask Google to block the offending video. Google initially blocked it in Egypt and Libya without even a government request, and then unblocked it.
Should companies, rather than governments, ever be the censors — arbiters of acceptability? Is it more palatable if companies are served with court orders to block access to Internet content? Or that, in keeping with its policy to abide by local laws, Google blocked the video in India and Indonesia because it was ruled illegal?
But more importantly, has a clear line been drawn between the direct incitement to violence (which should absolutely not be protected as free speech) and whether people choose to respond with violence to something they find offensive?
Rwanda is often cited as a case where the balance between safeguarding free speech and preventing violence is particularly relevant, given the severe ethnic conflicts resulting in the 1994 genocide following callings for violence. Local officials and government-sponsored radio incited ordinary citizens to kill their neighbours, and those who refused to kill were often murdered on the spot. The genocide-inciting radio broadcasts shouldn’t have been allowed. There is a clear dividing line.
But The Innocence of Muslims is not in the same category. And if Internet censorship is used because there is crowd violence — and in anticipation of violence, where does it end?
“The big story here is the crack-down on the Internet” William Echikson told me in a telephone interview from Brussels. “The pressures have grown dramatically. And we are doing our best to protect free expression. ”
Echikson is Head of Free Expression Policy and PR, Europe, Middle East & Africa at Google.
According to different reports, Innocence of Muslims was also blocked in India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia as a result of court orders. Google also blocked the video in Malaysia after receiving an official complaint from the Communications and Multimedia Commission, according to AFP. Reporters without Borders said the video was also blocked in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Russia via court orders on grounds of being “extremist”. And in Pakistan, it was blocked by the Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, who issued a directive to the Ministry of Information Technology.
The key, original censors here seem to be violent demonstrators and restrictive governments. Of the 150 countries where Google operates, in about 30 its service has been “affected one way or the other”, adds Echikson.
Governments are indeed cracking-down on the web, either because they already censor blasphemous and other offensive material (even without any likelihood of violence) or because they are giving in to actual or threatened violence. But if governments continue doing that, couldn’t it become an incentive for any fanatical group to threaten or act violently, and get censorship as a result? Isn’t this very similar to the mechanisms of terror: you terrorise or hurt one to scare a thousand?
That is why it is so vital that everyone understands the difference between incitement to violence, and violence in response to offense, an idea that, weeks after the video furore, has vanished from the agenda.
A country such as China may shed some light on where we are heading.
After a series of huge protests and ethnic riots (many of which were organised using instant messaging services, chat rooms, and text messages), China is reported to have intensified its efforts to neutralise online criticism. According to Amnesty, China has the largest number of imprisoned journalists and cyber-dissidents in the world, while the number of “Internet police” is rumoured to be higher than 30,000.
The reason for all this political censorship.
Many of the violent reactions to The Innocence of Muslims were for political reasons, using offence as an excuse. In fact, some analysts and US officials have reported that Benghazi attack of 11 September, which killed the US ambassador to Libya, appeared to have been planned in advance, and had nothing to do whatsoever with the video.
So for the Internet, where does all this end? With the annihilation of McLuhan’s global village and the beginning of a new era of of separate, isolated, over-scrutinised, parochial Internets.
Miren Guitierrez is editorial director of Index on Censorship
16 Oct 12 | Middle East and North Africa
Saudi Arabia has said it is “insulted” by the announcement of a UK Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into the UK’s relationship with the Gulf states, in particular Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. In a veiled threat to key trade deals, the country warned that it may “re-evaluate their country’s historic relations” with the UK in response. The inquiry has asked for responses on “how the UK can encourage democratic and liberalising reforms in Saudi Arabia”.
This probe was first announced unofficially by Ann Clwyd MP at an Index on Censorship Bahrain briefing in early September. Attending the briefing on human rights abuses and stalled efforts of reform was Maryam al-Khawaja, Acting President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR). Highlighting censorship and human rights abuses in her country, al-Khawaja said “the UK is to Bahrain what Russia is to Syria”.
In the briefing she pointed out that:
The UK government has made countless pledges to push on Bahrain to implement supposed reforms, but has yet to push forcefully on its partner where it counts…the country continues to perpetuate flagrant human rights violations.
The UK Foreign Office (FCO) regularly refers to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as “close friends”, “key allies” and “valuable trade partners”. Just yesterday as the inquiry furore was made public the FCO said: “Saudi Arabia is a key strategic partner in the region and one of the closest friends and allies”.
Clearly it is politically expedient to ignore the way Saudi Arabia ruthlessly constricts the freedom of its female population, censors much criticism of the ruling authorities and regularly breaks international human rights law in the way it treats its citizens. Bahrain, another ally, breaks up peaceful protests with teargas, birdshot and police brutality, locking up its citizens for such dreadful crimes as tweeting and “insulting the King”.
Throughout the recent uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, the UK government openly supported protests and revolutions that toppled dictators in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. However when the Bahraini people gathered at the Pearl Roundabout in Manama to voice their discontent they were met with a brutal crackdown by the Bahraini authorities aided by Saudi forces. Despite promises of reform this crackdown continues complete with numerous injured protesters, political prisoners, and claims of torture.
And the punishment by the UK government to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain? The UK signs a defence agreement with the Gulf Kingdom to “bolster Bahrain’s security with regards to its regional standing, as well as its internal stability” and remains silent on the issue of human rights abuses in the country.
Index calls upon the UK Foreign Office to live up to its international commitments on human rights and to put real and adequate pressure on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to reform.
Index and the BCHR both welcome the announcement of this week’s inquiry and plan to submit evidence.
Annette Fisher is international programmes manager at Index
Read more:
Index’s spotlight on Bahrain on the anniversary of the 14 February unrest
The more we live our lives online, the greater the temptation for governments and private companies to spy on us. Padraig Reidy highlights the dark side of our increasing dependence on digital communications