[/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Apply for Free Speech Training and Mentoring” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
>> Applications for Free Speech Is For Me have now closed <<
Following a successful initial pilot of Free Speech is for Me we are now preparing to offer our free speech training to a wider group of the public. We hope to make this next group bigger than ever, and the training will be free and online. If you are interested in these free sessions on free speech and free expression, with links to advocacy, activism and defending human rights please fill in this form to express your interest today.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/_pmpc3CpGn0″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Free speech has been critical to social movements throughout history. It has consistently been used as a powerful tool for marginalised groups to articulate their grievances and demand to be heard.
But today discussions surrounding “free speech” have unfortunately been dominated by a small number of people who seek to use it primarily to curtail the rights of others and spread hate, leading many to question it as a value.
However, when the principle of free speech is abandoned, those who already face oppression are hurt most: including people of colour, religious and ethnic minorities, and those who campaign on sex and gender issues. Free Speech is for Me aims to show how freedom of expression furthers democracy and individual liberty and benefits everyone. If we allow free speech protections to be weakened, we lose our greatest tool in advocating for change.
We are now supporting these advocates in reclaiming free speech as a fundamental right that must apply to everyone by offering training and mentoring on freedom of expression issues. This will include one on one support from leading free speech experts plus media, communications and public speaking training. They will end the programme with a clearer understanding of the challenges of censorship and the tools to overcome them.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column width=”1/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1565187480669{background-color: #e52d1c !important;}”][vc_column_text]
We are recruiting six people in the US and six people in the UK, from groups whose belief in the value of free expression principles has been challenged in recent years.
We are seeking applicants who would bring a different angle to discussions around free speech.
Applicants may come from all age groups and particular consideration will be given to activists who have experienced the shutting down of speech. We want applicants who will champion free speech as a right that benefits them and their peers and is essential to their cause but is also a right shared by all.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_separator color=”white”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column width=”1/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1565187500255{background-color: #E52D1C !important;}”][vc_column_text]
If your application is successful you will receive:
Mentoring: Advocates will be paired with experienced free speech advocates who will act as an advisor and mentor to each individual over the course of the training. You will have 4-6 meetings delivered either face to face or virtually, plus additional support as needed.
Media training: Advocates will receive one full day of professional media training plus regular training on public speaking/writing as necessary.
Public events: Advocates will be given the skills to talk about issues of free speech at public events, in private meetings and in the media. We will work with you to identify these opportunities. We will pay for your expenses to attend training and a speaker fee for events and writing.
Please complete the following application form and submit to us by Friday 27 September 2019.
If you are shortlisted you will also be asked for full resume and may be invited to an interview, which will take place during the last week of September.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_separator color=”white”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][gravityform id=”42″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_section][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Free Speech is for Me: Class of 2020 US
See what this year’s American intake have been doing as part of their programme.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112393″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112394″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112395″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”112396″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Free Speech is for Me: Class of 2020
See updates from the first intake of the programme, featuring interviews with mentors and advocates.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”111324″ img_size=”large” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/12/free-speech-is-for-me-class-of-2020/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qc8MSYLkQg”][/vc_column][/vc_row][/vc_section][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Meet the mentors” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Through training and mentoring, Free Speech is for Me is equipping people from all backgrounds and beliefs to speak out against censorship. The mentors will work with the 13 advocates to help them defend and champion the issue of free speech.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Jodie Ginsberg” title=”CEO, Index on Censorship” profile_image=”104110″]Jodie Ginsberg is the CEO of Index on Censorship. Prior to joining Index, she worked as a foreign correspondent and business journalist and was previously UK bureau chief for Reuters. She sits on the council of global free expression network IFEX and the board of the Global Network Initiative, and is a regular commentator in international media on freedom of expression issues.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Will Gore” title=”Columnist” profile_image=”110641″]Will Gore is the head of partnerships for the National Council for the Training of Journalists and former managing editor of The Independent, i, Independent on Sunday and the London Evening Standard. He writes on a wide range of topics, including politics, the media and cricket, and writes a weekly column for the Independent on memorable journeys.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Kiri Kankhwende” title=”Journalist and campaigner” profile_image=”110611″]
Kiri Kankhwende is a Malawian journalist and political analyst based in London who writes primarily about politics and immigration. She has worked in human rights campaigning and is a member of Writers of Colour. She is also a member of Index on Censorship’s board of trustees.
[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Meera Selva” title=”Journalist” profile_image=”110962″]Meera is an accomplished senior journalist with experience in Europe, Asia and Africa, currently the Director of the Journalism Fellowship Programme at the Reuters Institute. She joined the Reuters Institute from Handelsblatt Global where she had been working out of Singapore, having helped launch the digital daily business paper in Berlin in 2014. Her previous experience includes several years as a London based correspondent for the Associated Press, and three years as Africa correspondent for the Independent based in Nairobi, along with stints in business journalism at a range of publications including the Daily Telegraph.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Nadine Strossen” title=”Professor of law” profile_image=”111384″]New York Law School professor Nadine Strossen, the immediate past President of the American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008), is a leading expert and frequent speaker/media commentator on constitutional law and civil liberties, who has testified before Congress on multiple occasions. Her acclaimed 2018 book HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship was selected by Washington University as its 2019 “Common Read.”[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Kenan Malik” title=”Writer, lecturer and broadcaster” profile_image=”82874″]Kenan Malik is a British writer, lecturer and broadcaster. His main areas of interest are the history of ideas, philosophy of science, religion, politics, race and immigration. His books include The Meaning of Race (1996), Man, Beast and Zombie (2000) and Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate (2008). He writes a column for The Guardian and the New York Times.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Xinran” title=”Author and journalist” profile_image=”106837″]Xinran is a British–Chinese author, journalist and activist. Her first book, The Good Women of China, was published in 2002 and became an international bestseller. She has written two novels, Miss Chopsticks (2008) and The Promise (2018) and four other non-fiction books: Sky Burial, China Witness, Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother and Buy Me the Sky. She is an advocate for women’a issues and is a contributor to Index on Censorship magazine.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Konstantin Kisin” title=”Comedian” profile_image=”110630″]Konstantin Kisin is an award-winning Russian-British comedian, podcaster and writer. In 2018 he refused to sign a university “behavioural agreement form” which banned jokes about religion, atheism and insisted that all humour must be “respectful and kind”. He is also the creator and co-host of Triggernometry, a posdcast and YouTube show where comedians interview economists, political experts, journalists and social commentators about controversial and challenging subjects.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Emily Knox” title=”Professor in the School of Information Sciences” profile_image=”111712″]Emily Knox is a professor in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and teaches on information access, intellectual freedom and censorship. She is also the author of Book Banning in 21st Century America and recently edited Trigger Warnings: History, Theory, Context. Knox serves on the boards of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Beta Phi Mu, the Freedom to Read Foundation, and the National Coalition Against Censorship.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Will Creeley” title=”Lawyer” profile_image=”111713″]Will Creeley is a lawyer and senior vice president of Legal and Public Advocacy at Fire (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Creeley has appeared on television and radio and has spoken to thousands of students, faculty, administrators and lawyers at events across the country. He is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association. Creeley’s writing has been published by The New York Times and The Washington Post, amongst others. Creeley edited the second edition of Fire’s Guide to Due Process and Campus Justice, coedited the second edition of Fire’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus and has coauthored amicus curiae briefs submitted to a number of courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Chris Finan” title=”Executive director, National Coalition Against Censorship” profile_image=”111714″]Chris Finan is executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, an alliance of 56 national non-profits that defends free speech. Finan has been involved in the fight against censorship throughout his career. He is former president of American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. He is author of From the Palmer Raids to the PATRIOT Act: A History of the Fight for Free Speech in America.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][staff name=”Emma Llansó” title=”Director, Centre for Democracy and Technology Free Expression Project” profile_image=”111767″]Emma Llansó is the director of the Center for Democracy and Technology Free Expression Project. Llansó leads CDT’s legislative advocacy and amicus activity around freedom of expression in the USA and the EU. Llansó serves on the board of the Global Network Initiative, an organisation that works to advance individuals’ privacy and free expression rights in the ICT sector around the world. She is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition Advisory Network, which provides advice to FOC member governments aimed at advancing human rights online.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Meet the advocates” font_container=”tag:h2|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Ash Kotak” profile_image=”111138″]Ash Kotak is an award-winning playwright & film maker. He is also a curator and journalist. Free speech is at the core of all his work as he is often challenging and questioning popular narratives to illuminate greater truths.
His works as a playwright includes Maa (Royal Court); Hijra (Bush Theatre, Theatre Royal Plymouth, West Yorkshire Playhouse, Theatre Du Nord, Lille (in French), New Conservatory Theatre, San Francisco, USA); No Gain, No Pain (The Other Place, Stratford-Upon-Avon). He is working on a new play entitled The AIDS Missionary. His latest film work includes: The Joneses(Exec Producer, USA, 90 mins, 2017); Punched By a Homosexualist (Exec Producer, Russia, 55 mins, 2018).
He set up an arts curating collective, Aesthesia, in 2014 which works with dehumanised, marginalised and disempowered communities to amplify individual voices through creative art projects.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Athena Stevens” profile_image=”111594″]Athena Stevens is an Olivier nominated writer and performer, a spokesperson for the UK’s Women’s Equality Party, and a human rights activist.
As both a creative and as an advocate she relies on free speech in the hopes that she and others will be able to give language to trauma, tell their story, and create a systematic change that leads to equality[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Dan Clarke” profile_image=”111595″]Dan Clarke is a master’s student of international public policy at UCL. He is interested in censorship issues around the world, especially in authoritarian countries such as China and many others in the Middle East and Africa.
Promoting freedom of the media and freedom of expression for all in society, including artists and critics, is vital for a fair, equitable and honest society where social issues can be addressed directly and without fear of repercussion. The protests in Hong Kong and the crackdown on the Uyghurs in China are two of the most important censorship issues for him. [/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Max Lake” profile_image=”111181″]Max graduated from the University of Birmingham in July 2019 and, as a liberal, was deeply alarmed at the student union’s censorious policies. He wants to change the culture of free speech, particularly on university campuses, where he and other students were fearful of speaking freely in seminars and lectures.
He has previously been constituency coordinator for Vote Leave in Rossendale and Darwen and is currently a constituency organiser for The Brexit Party. He would love to advocate for free speech, democracy and other constitutional issues as a future career.[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Rhiannon Adams” profile_image=”111207″]Rhiannon is a researcher and campaigner for human rights and technology. Educated at UCL and UC Berkeley, she trained at Amnesty International in their technology programme. She currently works in the legal sector, working with activists who have been targeted with spyware for their activism. She also works on the #NotYourPorn campaign to end revenge porn.
Her interests are targeted surveillance, spyware, online censorship and the issues that come with free speech on the internet, specifically self-censorship, internet shutdowns and blanket bans on certain types of speech. She hopes her insight into technology and human rights will bring an interesting perspective to the discussion on freedom of expression. [/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Maya Thomas” profile_image=”111601″]Maya is a third-year history undergraduate at Oxford University, and founder of the Oxford Society for Free Discourse, a group dedicated to countering censorship among students and academics. OSFD’s aim is to promote free speech as a universal value essential to facilitating constructive interaction between polarised ideas.
Maya’s work with OSFD varies from organising speaker’s events and public demonstrations, to informal debates and research. Linking her interest in free speech to her former presidency of the History Society, Maya has also become involved in the production of “Clear and Present Danger”, a podcast on the history of free speech.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Madeleine Stone” profile_image=”111605″]Madeleine recently completed an MA in human rights law at SOAS and is currently working with Big Brother Watch, where she has focused on technology, surveillance, data and free speech online. She is involved in the ‘Preventing Prevent’ campaign, which seeks to educate and organise resistance to the government’s intrusive counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent.
She is particularly interested in how counterterrorism, surveillance and policing combine to create a chilling effect that dampens free speech, particularly for those who have traditionally been at the sharp end of state power. She is also passionate about women’s rights and LGBT rights and seeks to amplify the voices of these communities in her work.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Marjory Wentworth” profile_image=”112016″]
Marjory Wentworth is the New York Times bestselling author of Out of Wonder, Poems Celebrating Poets (with Kwame Alexander and Chris Colderley). She is the co-writer with Herb Frazier and Bernard Powers of We Are Charleston, Tragedy and Triumph at Mother Emanuel, and also wrote Taking a Stand, The Evolution of Human Rights, with Juan E. Mendez. She is the current poet laureate of South Carolina. Wentworth serves on the board of advisors at The Global Social Justice Practice Academy. She teaches courses in writing, social justice and banned books at The College of Charleston.
[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Lillian Bustle” profile_image=”112131″]Lillian Bustle is a TEDx speaker, burlesquer and body love activist. Bustle has lobbied the state of New Jersey and municipalities for trans rights and successfully removed laws prohibiting cross dressers in bars and obscenity laws statewide. She is an advocate for sex workers’ rights, the LGBTQ community, and intersectional feminism. She recently led an advocacy workshop at a national burlesque conference and is working to connect her advocacy to the protection and promotion of freedom of expression more directly. Bustle is based in New Jersey.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Mariana Nogales-Molinelli” profile_image=”112136″]Mariana Nogales-Molinelli is a human rights lawyer in Puerto Rico. She has a breadth of experience and is publicly active in diverse human rights (feminist, queer, environmentalist, anti-austerity) networks. Nogales-Molinelli’s recent free speech work has focused on protecting the right to protest through the organisation, Brigada Legal Solidaria. She is one of the founders of Humanistas Seculares de Puerto Rico, an organisation that advocates for the separation of church and state.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Maya Rubin” profile_image=”112058″]Maya Rubin is a sophomore at Wellesley College. She is passionate about free speech for students on college campuses, and has worked with the Wellesley Freedom Project as an Adam Smith fellow and senior fellow to further the intellectual diversity at Wellesley. She has also worked with Index on Censorship as an intern. She hopes to show students the importance of free expression to improve their ability to honestly engage with one another.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Obden Mondésir” profile_image=”112015″]Obden Mondésir is an archivist and oral historian at the Weeksville Heritage Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is also active in the prison abolition movement. Obden’s parents are Haitian immigrants who lived under dictatorship and Obden saw firsthand how a culture of fear was sustained in the USA through self-censorship. Last year, he helped to organise a free speech series with the New School, NCAC and Article 19. As part of that effort, he began a research project on historic “seditious” speech.[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][staff name=”Adeline Lee” profile_image=”112263″]Adeline Lee is a graduate of Wellesley College. She is currently at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project which works to advance and defend First and Fourth Amendment freedoms amid developments in technology and science. Prior to the ACLU, Lee helped establish PEN America’s Campus Free Speech Program, working with university officials, faculty and student leaders across the country to foster dialogue and understanding following major free speech controversies. She is the coauthor of Chasm in the Classroom: Campus Free Speech in a Divided America, analysing over one hundred instances of Trump-era free speech infringements and debates, and served in 2019 on education-technology company EVERFI’s first national advisory board for diversity, equity and inclusion.[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_zigzag][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of an ongoing series created in partnership with Scholars at Risk, an international network of institutions and individuals whose mission it is to protect scholars, promote academic freedom, and defend everyone’s right to think, question, and share ideas freely and safely.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”107359″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
“I realised that I had been cheated by the Chinese government,” legal scholar TengBiao said describing his drive to pursue a career in human rights law.
Teng said that he was motivated by the Tiananmen Square movement, the student-led protests that bloomed after the death of pro-reform communist leader Hu Yaobang in April 1989. An officially-sanctioned mourning period provided an opening for Chinese to express their anxieties about the direction of the country. Officials reacted with a mixture of conciliatory and hardline tactics that revealed a split with the communist party leadership. Ultimately, the hardliners won out, with the country’s paramount leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping, and his allies resolving to use force to suppress the movement. Up to 300,000 troops mobilised under a martial law order implemented on 20 May. On 4 June 1989, the troops were ordered into central Beijing, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to thousands.
“So many people have sacrificed their lives to fight for democracy and freedom, so I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up,” Teng said.
For his efforts to defend human rights in China by taking on politically sensitive cases, Teng, who has been abducted three times, moved to the USA in 2014. He continues to pursue human rights law and activism as a visiting scholar at Princeton, Harvard, and New York University.
As the Chinese regime continues its crackdown on scholars, intellectuals, journalists and human rights lawyers, Teng analyzes the way in which the Chinese regime under Xi Jinping has used high-technology totalitarianism to successfully target and suppress dissidents.
Summer Dosch interviewed Teng for Index on Censorship.
Index: What motivated you to specialise in human rights law?
TengBiao: Before I went to the university, I was a brainwashed high school student, and I didn’t know the meaning of law, human rights, or politics. After a few years of studying in law school at Peking University, I realised that I had been cheated by the Chinese government. I gradually had to develop independent thinking. Once I knew more about the human rights situation in China, I decided to become a scholar. Before I got my PhD, my idea was to focus on academic and intellectual work so that I could use it to promote human rights law in China. Soon after I began to teach at a university in Beijing, I participated in a very influential case, and then I founded a human rights entity. After that, I became a human rights lawyer and dedicated my work to the human rights cause in China.
Index:When did you start receiving threats from the Chinese regime for your work?
Teng: When I started my human rights work, my first case was quite influential, so I was prepared to receive harassment from the government; however I didn’t. Shortly after continuing my human rights work, I received harassment and warnings from the university and the government.
Index: What motivated you to keep teaching, and pursuing human rights law despite the limitations you faced and the threats you received from the Chinese regime?
Teng: I feel as though I have a special responsibility to promote human rights in China as a lawyer and an intellectual. In the early 2000’s, I felt that China was in the process of democratisation, and that there was still so much human rights work to do. It is dangerous, but I thought that I needed to take more risks as an intellectual. Two years after the Tiananmen massacre, I went to the university and I started learning the truth behind it, and I saw myself as survivor of the massacre. So many people have sacrificed their lives to fight for democracy and freedom, so I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up. The feeling of being a survivor of the Tiananmen massacre motivated me to keep going.
Index:What do you think of the current situation in China today?
Teng: After the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, the Chinese Communist Party instituted some economic reforms. In terms of the political system, the reform never happened; therefore it remains a one party system. The fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Chinese people remain very limited. In terms of human rights and press freedom, China has always been one of the worst countries in the world. Before Xi Jinping came to power in late 2012, the crackdown on Chinese society was severe. Although censorship and persecution were there, they were not like what Jinping has been doing for the past six years. After 2013, the human rights situation deteriorated even more. Jinping has turned China’s collective dictatorship into a personal dictatorship.
The Communist party is also establishing what I call high-technology totalitarianism. This kind of high-tech totalitarianism has never happened in human history. It includes DNA collection, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, big data, and a sociocratic system, which have all been used by the Chinese government to strengthen its control over society. Jinping and the Chinese government started a comprehensive crackdown that targeted all the forces that had been fighting for freedom and human rights law, including human rights lawyers, bloggers, scholars, underground churches, and the internet. This crackdown is getting worse, and will continue to get worse in the years to come.
Index: What do you think of Chinese-American relations today? How do they continue to threaten international freedom and intellectual freedom?
Teng: I am quite critical of the American policy towards China. American and other western democracies have adopted an engagement policy. They think that if they permit China to be a part of WTO and international human rights treaties, China will start to move towards democracy, and promote more of an open society; however this has not happened. Human rights activists and dissidents have always called for policy change, and for a link between human rights and business; however the United States has not listened until just recently. Within the last two to three years, I sense that the United States is thinking about a policy change. They have seen more and more evidence that China has become a threat to international free order. Then we also see the trade war between the United States and China, which indicates that there will be more tension between the two countries. The Chinese government has violated human rights and freedom in China, and in doing so has become a threat to global human rights and freedom. So I believe that the threat is from the Chinese government, not from China-United States relations.
Index: How do current Chinese-American relations affect your work as a human rights lawyer today?
Teng: Before 2014, I was in Taicheng publishing my articles and books, and I was also traveling internationally. Because of my human rights activities, I was put under house arrest, kidnapped by the secret police, and tortured. During this time, I wasn’t able to continue my human rights work. Even in the United States, I still feel pressure and interference from the Chinese government. A publishing unit refused to publish my book after I had signed the agreement because they were afraid of the Chinese government. They told me that my book would endanger their programs in China. My graduate talk was also canceled by an ivy league university in the United States.
After I came to the United States, my wife and my children were prevented from leaving China, and were held by the Chinese government as hostages. I also received death threats from anonymous Twitter users, who were obviously working for a Chinese agent. There are many more examples similar to these. Again the threat to my work comes from the Chinese government, not from China-United States relations.
Index: How have intellectuals in China responded to the decline of intellectual freedom in China?
Teng: Most intellectuals, writers, scholars, and journalists are controlled by the Chinese government. No matter what kind of belief or ideology they have, they don’t criticise the Chinese government publically. Only a few intellectuals are brave enough to share their independent thoughts that criticise the current government system. Some of these intellectuals would be seen as dissidents if they went any further. For the past five to six years, intellectual and academic freedom has been decreasing very rapidly. The information control of districts, universities, and publishers became severe. More intellectuals are afraid of being outspoken, so they stay silent, delete their social media, and don’t write critical articles. Only a few dozen intellectuals are still active and courageous enough to be critical.
Index: Do you think there has been a significant emigration of scholars and intellectuals from China?
Teng: I have seen some intellectuals go to the United States in exile, and there will be more. The problem is that it is not easy to live in the United States in exile. Some scholars and human rights activists are in great danger if they continue to live in China. Some of them have been fired, imprisoned, or tortured and therefore have to leave China to apply for political asylum. Most scholars who feel unhappy and pressure from the government, but are not facing immediate danger do not think that it is easy to live in a foreign country. So we haven’t seen hundreds and thousands of Chinese scholars and intellectuals moving outside of the country.
Index:Why did you decide to flee to the United States and what has life been like for you and your family since moving there?
Teng: When I was in China, I was detained and tortured a few times, and my family was targeted. Even after my abduction, disappearance, and torture, I continued my work. In late 2013, many activists of the New Citizens Movement were arrested, and I am one of the initiators of the New Citizens Movement. At that time I was also a visiting scholar at a Chinese university in Hong Kong, so it was quite clear that if I went back to China from Hong Kong, I would be arrested and no longer able to continue my work. I then accepted an invitation from Harvard Law School.
Index: How has your family adapted to life in the United States?
Teng: They are accustomed to American life, but it is always a challenge for foreigners to live in a new country. The language barrier, and the culture difference make life especially difficult. Because of the pressure from the Chinese government, my wife was fired from the company that she had been working for for 17 years. It is not easy for me to get a job because my degree is from China, so I have had to start from zero in the United States; however at least my wife and children are not living in fear. I appreciate the free and safe environment in the United States where I can continue to pursue my human rights activism.
Index:What were you teaching or working on when you were abducted by the secret police?
Teng: The first time I was abducted was in 2008, and the second time was in 2011. I was a lecturer at the China University of Political Science and Law. I was teaching jury’s prudence and constitutional law, but the main reason I was abducted was because of my involvement in several human rights cases, which related to Tibetans, underground churches, and unlawful convictions. I have been involved in many politically sensitive cases. The third time I was abducted was in 2012, and I was only held hostage for one night. I was released before my friends, family, and the media knew about my abduction.
Index:Do you have plans to go back to China in the near future?
Teng: As a human rights lawyer, I really want to work in China. I enjoyed the time I was fighting for human rights law and democracy with my Chinese colleagues. But now, I am unable to return to China without being blocked or arrested by the Chinese government. I predict that government control will only tighten in the coming years, and because of this I will not be able to go back to China. But I really hope that I can go back to either a free China, or as a human rights lawyer to continue my human rights work without being imprisoned for the long-term.
Index: What are your thoughts about the protests against the extradition law being proposed in Hong Kong?
Teng: On June 10 2014, by issuing a ‘white paper’, Beijing had destroyed ‘one country two systems’ which is not only a promise to Hong Kong and UK, but also a part of international commitment. Hong Kong has been an impressive example that a dictatorial regime will not tolerate a special region which has political freedom. The Umbrella Movement was a failed fight for universal suffrage, but the protest against the extradition law seems to be the ‘last fight’, because if this extradition bill is passed, a free Hong Kong will be over soon. It is the shame of the WHOLE WORLD to helplessly see how a free and prosperous city was occupied and killed by a dictatorial regime, and by the appeasement policy adopted by the democracies.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Scholars at Risk” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”31940″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist’s Project Exile series, which has published interviews with exiled journalists from around the world.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]Sonali Samarasinghe remembers the last words of her husband Lasantha Wickrematunge on the day he was killed in 2009: “Don’t worry, I got it under control.”
Threats weren’t new to Wickrematunge. As the editor of The Sunday Leader, a Sri Lankan newspaper that published articles exposing government corruption, he’d been followed, attacked with clubs and received a funeral wreath at his office.
Samarasinghe was the chief investigative journalist and consulting editor for the newspaper and also the founding editor-in-chief of its sister paper, The Morning Leader.
Like other journalists, the couple worked in a difficult environment, as their newspapers competed with state-owned newsrooms and faced constant pressure for criticising the government of then-president Mahinda Rajapaksa. In late 2008 and early 2009, Rajapaksa’s government was in the final months of a brutal decades-long civil war with Tamil Tiger rebels. Still, Wickrematunge’s assassination shocked the south Asian nation and would force Samarasinghe into years of exile.
“For the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, Wickrematunge was the biggest thorn in their flesh,” Samarasinghe wrote in a blog post. “He investigated corrupt military procurement deals, spoke out strongly and passionately for a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict and debunked blatant government propaganda on the war.”
Indeed Wickrematunge’s first wife, Raine, was so fearful for her family’s safety that she left Sri Lanka for Australia in 2002 with the couple’s three children. Samarasinghe worked for Wickrematunge for years before the couple married in 2008, just two months before his death.
She too made powerful enemies. Samarasinghe was once interrogated for more than four hours by Sri Lanka’s Criminal Investigations Department in an attempt to get her to reveal her sources in an investigation into the central bank’s dealings with a company accused of running a Ponzi scheme. In another incident, an article about tsunami relief accused Rajapaksa and other top officials of siphoning off millions in aid money. The Morning Leader’s printing presses were attacked and copies of the paper burned in 2007 by 15 gunmen after a separate exposé on the family of cabinet minister Mervyn Silva.
On 8 January 2009, Samarasinghe and Wickrematunge received a call from the newspaper while returning home from the pharmacy. It was a warning: they were being followed.
As they got out of their car, two men wearing black fatigues on a black motorcycle sped past them, staring them down, says Samarasinghe in an interview with Global Journalist. The couple went into the house and closed all their doors. Samarasinghe says she tried to keep Wickrematunge at home, but he was determined to go to the office to write his well-known political column.
On his way to the newspaper during rush hour, Wickrematunge was ambushed and killed in broad daylight by motorcycle-riding attackers, one of at least 19 journalists slain in Sri Lanka for their work since 1992, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Wickrematunge had been prepared for this outcome. He’d already written his own obituary, which included the line: “…when finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.”
“We were up against an administration that had taken impunity to the level of a martial art,” Samarasinghe says.
Samarasinghe continued receiving threats even after Wickrematunge’s assassination. Ttwo weeks later, she escaped to New York.
She became a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in August 2009 and started the independent Lanka Standard news site in 2011. After Harvard, she spent time as a journalist in residence at City University of New York and Ithaca College.
Then in 2015 came an opportunity for justice. Rajapaksa suffered a surprise defeat to former ally Maithripala Sirisena in presidential elections. The six-year-old investigation into Wickrematunge’s death, which had yielded no convictions, was reopened. Samarasinghe was hired by the new administration to work in New York at Sri Lanka’s mission to the United Nations.
In 2016, a former soldier was found dead with an apparent suicide note in which he claimed responsibility for killing Wickrematunge’s. A police report implicated a special military unit led by Rajapaksa’s brother and defence secretary, Gotbaya Rajapaksa.
Yet progress stalled. Gotbaya, who is also being sued by Wickrematunge’s daughter in US courts for her father’s death, has announced he’s running for president to succeed Sirisena in elections later this year. Both Rajapaksas have denied involvement in the editor’s death. Meanwhile, after a wave of terrorist bombings in April killed more than 250 people, President Sirisena said that investigations into human rights abuses during the Sri Lankan Civil War had weakened the security forces and left the country at risk.
Samarasinghe spoke with Global Journalist’s Seth Bodine about the killing of her husband, the threats against her, and the prospect of those responsible escaping Sri Lankan justice. Below is an edited version of their interview.
Global Journalist: What was it like being a journalist in Sri Lanka around the time of your husband’s death?
Samarasinghe: We were up against an administration that had taken impunity to the level of a martial art. It had incrementally closed the democratic space, the space for freedom of expression. This didn’t happen overnight. It happened incrementally.
One by one private media organisations were being bought by businessmen or acolytes of the president at the time, Mahinda Rajapaksa. Even his own family.
Those who were not bought up chose to associate themselves with the ruling regime because then they could engage in lucrative business with the government. The state-controlled media was really state-controlled. It included the nation’s largest newspaper group. So, you could not compete with that.
At the time, when we were working, there was no freedom of information act. Speaking to journalists was actively discouraged by the government.
Even though the constitution provided for freedom of expression, that freedom of expression right was infringed upon by other laws. With emergency power regulations, anything could happen. There was the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was another draconian piece of legislation which really curtailed freedom. And there were other laws, giving the government and the armed forces power to arrest without warrant.
So you could be detained at that time for up to 20 months without charge. Officials were shielded from prosecution so you couldn’t even challenge them.
The culture of impunity was just staggering. I mean, at that time white vans would go around abducting journalists and activists. Some of them never to be seen again, some of them beaten to a pulp and thrown on the side of the road.
GJ: Was there any warning of the danger to you and Lasantha?
Samarasinghe: We weren’t given any warning about the motorcyclists except a few minutes before when someone from the office called to say that he was being followed. But before that, there were certain things that were happening.
For instance, he received a cutting of a newspaper which was drenched in red ink. This was like a week before. He himself knew. He was talking to me, and he said, “It’s very dangerous now.”
Then, two days before Wickrematunge’s death, a very independent TV network was destroyed. They came in and they burned the place down.
GJ: What led you to flee?
Samarasinghe: It was the trauma of going through the death of my husband in such a violent manner. Then, neighbours let us know that the motorcyclists had come back and were circling the premises.
So I immediately left my home. My mother didn’t know where I was, I didn’t tell anyone where I was, and I stayed with a friend.
Meanwhile things were happening at home. Two men walked into the house, and despite my mother’s protest, they very aggressively started taking photos of the inside and outside of my home. They photographed my little niece. Then they rushed out of the house. So, within two weeks I realised I had to leave.
Both the Australian and American ambassadors reached out to help. And ultimately, I fled to Europe and found shelter in the home of a European ambassador who took me in for two months.
GJ: What happened at The Sunday Leader after Lasantha’s death?
Samarasinghe: For the two weeks I was in charge of the newspaper following the assassination of my husband, I wrote the political column focusing on his death, the then-president’s reaction, and the immediate aftermath. I also had other journalists intensely focus on the investigation.
We ran half-page ads on a black background of threats made by president Rajapaksa to Lasantha. However, I was compelled to flee the country. The newspaper ground to a halt and understandably diluted itself and went into survival mode.
GJ: How did you feel when you left?
Samarasinghe: You really feel like your country has betrayed you. And you also have to face so many emotions. Those who knew Lasantha just denied knowing him. Everyone was scared. It was such a horrid time.
Some of my friends and family would no longer ride in the same car with me because I had to drive to work in those two weeks, fearing that they would be collateral damage, that I would be the next obvious target. For a long time, I couldn’t even convince a caretaker or friend to check in on my house because they were just scared people were watching it, or that they could be attacked or targeted.
Superstition was doing its bit. Nobody wanted to rent or buy a home they felt was one of tragedy – because it was a home of a couple whose dreams were dashed within two months of marriage. So they thought it was bad luck.
All these things, all of these cultural and political issues were just swirling around. It was a really torrid time because of that.
It was just the panic of having to leave and having to look undefeated for the cameras because you have to look strong. The panic of not seeing familiar faces, the stress of coming to an unknown place.
Language had failed me. And I was a journalist who wrote 10,000 words or more a week. It was then that I learned and was relieved to know that it was post-traumatic stress disorder.
GJ: Before Rajapaksa surprisingly lost the 2015 election, did you imagine that you would ever go back to Sri Lanka?
Samarasinghe: I had just abandoned all hope of getting back to Sri Lanka. I thought this was going to go on forever. In 2015, before the election, even the New York Times had an editorial that said the regime is going to remain. None of us expected this to happen. The next day, we all bought tickets to go back to Sri Lanka. Everyone was buying tickets.
GJ: Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was defence minister at the time of your husband’s death, and who was linked to his killing by a police report, has announced he will run for president this year. Are you upset that the people responsible for his death are still free?
Samarasinghe: Investigations into Lasantha’s murder are still continuing. It is not for me to comment at this time. The people of Sri Lanka will decide in democratically-held elections.
I will say this: I believe in the rule of law and I believe in divine justice. As Dr. King noted: “Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a place and Christ a cross, but that same Christ will rise up and split history into AD and BC, so that even the life of Caesar must be dated by his name…the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/6BIZ7b0m-08″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship partner Global Journalist is a website that features global press freedom and international news stories as well as a weekly radio program that airs on KBIA, mid-Missouri’s NPR affiliate, and partner stations in six other states. The website and radio show are produced jointly by professional staff and student journalists at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, the oldest school of journalism in the United States. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook). We’ll send you our weekly newsletter, our monthly events update and periodic updates about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share, sell or transfer your personal information to anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Global Journalist / Project Exile” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”22142″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”106990″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Anzhelina Polonskaya became a recognised writer and poet during the turbulent post-Soviet Union era. Inspired by the works of famous Russian writers, she became a self-taught poet and began writing seriously at the age of eighteen. A talented figure skater, Polonskayadecided to focus on developing her writing skills and poetic voice.
“There’s a lot of pressure and the sporadic income makes my life unstable,” she tells Index on Censorship of her life as a writer.
Her poetry, which is influenced by her small hometown of Malakhovka near Moscow, presents a unique and authentic interpretation of the political upheaval and corruption within the Russian regime. She has consistently protested against the Russian regime in her poetry, short stories, and essays. In one of Polonskaya’s most recent books, To the Ashes, she specifically draws from the themes of exile, home, war, authoritarianism, and personal relationships.
Her work has been translated and published in the USA and UK by Zephyr Press, a small press specialising in world literature and poetry, which has significantly added to her recognition and acclaim as a writer. She has had translations of her work published in some of the world’s most prominent poetry journals, including World Literature Today and Poetry Review. She also became a member of the Moscow Union of Writers in 1998 and joined the Russian Pen Centre in 2003.
“I went to every protest in Moscow, and after my family began to receive threats, I left the country,” she says. One of her most significant works, “Oratorio-Requiem” Kursk, in which she laments about the 118 lives that were lost after the sinking of the Kursk submarine, caused the Russian regime to target her as a threat. After the work was released in 2011, she went into exile in Germany from 2015 to 2017. Since then she has returned to Russia and is currently working to preserve the Russian Pen Centre. Although she is no longer allowed to publish her work in Russia, she continues to write for journals outside of the country.
Summer Dosch interviewed Polonskaya for Index on Censorship.
Index: Which poets have influenced your writing style the most, and which poets continue to inspire your writing today?
Anzhelina Polonskaya: My first collection of poems were undoubtedly inspired by the Russian poet Marina Tsvetaeva. Later in my career, Russian and American poet Iosif Brodsky began to inspire my poetry as well. I also admire the work of Eugenio Montale and Paul Celan. It took me a very long time to find my own voice in poetry, and it was a painful process. I found my own place in poetry when I was about thirty years old, which is late compared to other poets.
Index: What motivated you to pursue a career in writing instead of continuing your professional figure skating career?
Polonskaya: I can’t say that I made a decision to launch a career in creative writing. It was more that the “profession” came to me. It isn’t without its problems: There’s a lot of pressure and the sporadic income makes my life unstable.
Index: What main themes are you trying to communicate through your poetry, and how have these themes evolved as you have moved further up in your career?
Polonskaya: I reply with the words my publisher Zephyr Press used to describe my book To The Ashes: “Polonskaya’s second book with Zephyr reflects unflinchingly upon themes of exile and the anguish it can cause, home, war, authoritarianism and personal relationships.” I absolutely agree with my publisher’s statement. I am sure the world does not mean happiness for most people.
Index: How did the general public in Russia first respond to your writing, and how do they respond to it today?
Polonskaya: I only have a small circle of readers and have not published my books in Russia since 2008. Because I am outside of the literary process, nobody responds to my writing in the country.
Index: When did the Russian government start targeting you?
Polonskaya: The persecution began after the completion of “Oratorio-Requiem” Kursk, a score that I worked on with the Australian composer David Chisholm in 2011. It was an unpleasant topic for the president; therefore it was unacceptable within the political environment. Everyone knows me as a liberal writer. I went to every protest in Moscow, and after my family began to receive threats from unknown people I left the country. For some years I lived in Germany and gave many public talks, one being at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and did several interviews for newspapers. I have been invited to Barcelona for the anniversary of the death of Anna Politkovskaya. I have always protested against the Russian regime in my poetry, short stories and essays.
Index: Why was your project with David Chisholm an “unpleasant topic” and why was it viewed as unacceptable within the political environment”? Why did persecution follow after its completion?
Polonskaya: If you know how the crew on the Kursk submarine died, then you know that the Russian government refused to accept all the countries that could save it. It was a military object, and there was something to hide. As a result, the entire crew died an agonising death. Talk about the Kursk submarine in a country where the police regime has been in power for nearly twenty years, and you can receive a criminal case for any manifestation of freedom of speech. I think it is difficult to explain to a person in a free country that, under an authoritarian regime, they can follow you to a repost on the internet. David and I created a very frank score and a film, which became a political act.
Index: How do you continue to have an artistic voice in Russia from outside of the country?
Polonskaya: In Russia, I do not have an artistic voice that is greatly understood. My artistic voice is mainly established in Europe and the United States. I am very grateful to my translators for supporting my artistic voice. Now I am in Russia where I only have my seventy-eight-year-old mother who is ill. In October 2018 while I was in Germany, unknown people broke into my house in Moscow and stole all of my devices with interviews on them, my essay for the Swedish PEN-centre, my texts, my hard copies of interviews, and my protest photos. Nevertheless, I will continue to write for journals outside of Russia.
Today The Russian Centre is in a split stage. The current Pen Centre management grouprefused to be a part of an International Pen club. They created another literary organization called the Russian Pen. We, the initiative group, are trying to save the oldest Russian Pen Centre from disintegration and ask for the support of the International Pen Club.
Index: When you say that the Russian Pen Centre is in a “split stage”, what do you mean by that? Can you explain this stage a bit more?
Polonskaya: The Russian Pen Centre has been under a big scandal for over two years now. The situation is totally impossible. Those who currently govern the Pen Centre completely usurped power and created an organisation under the “Russian Pen Centre.” Instead of having a legitimately convened meeting, the president Evgeny Popov single-handedly conducted the reorganization of the Russian Pen Centre in 2018. In essence, his organisation has completely different goals than the Russian branch of the International Pen Club. Because of this, the Pen-Center has split apart. We, the liberal part, are trying to defend the name of the Pen-Centre. On 8 May, the president Evgeny Popov changed the locks in the Pen-Center building, which prohibited us from entering our own premises. We asked London to support the re-election of the president and the executive committee. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Artistic Freedom” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”29951″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Sonali Samarasinghe remembers the last words of her husband Lasantha Wickrematunge on the day he was killed in 2009: “Don’t worry, I got it under control.”