24 May 21 | Belarus, Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
There has rightly been international condemnation of the arrest of Roman Protasevich after his Ryanair flight from Greece to Lithuania was diverted to Belarusian capital Minsk. It is of particular concern that the state hijacking of Flight FR4978 was carried out on the personal orders of President Alexander Lukashenko. His disgraceful “confession” on state TV comes straight from the authoritarian playbook.
The 26-year-old has been described in a single report on the BBC as a “Belarusian opposition journalist”, a “dissident” and an “activist”. This extraordinary young man is all these things and more. But it is important that the western media does not let the Belarus regime define the narrative.
Protasevich is an independent journalist, but to be so in Belarus is to immediately become an activist. And, meanwhile, the regime is in the process of defining all activists as terrorists. Index has been reporting for months on the systematic crackdown on independent journalism by the Lukashenko regime. Hijacking is just the latest method to control free expression in Belarus.
British MP Tom Tugendhat (chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee) has described the arrest as a “warlike act”, and this is no understatement. He has emphasised that a hijacking is an escalation of the situation. But we should not lose sight of why Protasevich represented such a threat. It is because he was a journalist the regime has not been able to control since he fled the country for Poland in 2019.
Protasevich is the former editor of Nexta, a media organisation that works via the social media platfrom Telegram, which circumvents censorship in Belarus. Nexta was instrumental in reporting on the opposition to Lukashenko during the elections of 2020. Until this week Protasevich had been working for another Telegram channel Belamova. Like the underground “samizdat” publications of the Soviet era, these Telegram channels provided much-needed hope to civil society in Belarus.
Parallels have been drawn between Russian dissident Alexei Navalny and Roman Protasevich and it is true that he provides a similar focus for the Belarusian opposition. However, he has been targeted not as a political leader, but as a journalist. It is as a journalist that we should defend him.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”172″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
09 Apr 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Photo: Epyc Wynn/Pixanay
I think two of the most unfashionable words in the political sphere at the moment are nuance and context. As a former politician, I completely understand why controversial and provocative statements win out; why polar positions make more entertaining viewing; why pitting people at odds with each other is more likely to inspire ongoing debate and will boost the number of Twitter likes and comments.
In other words, I know why some politicians and journalists are seeking to polarise. It boosts their profile, ensures that someone, somewhere will consider them relevant and for some even ensures that they have a payday.
But the question for me at least, is what cost is this having to our public space? Where is the place for debate rather than argument? How can we build consensus and solidarity if all we’re doing is shouting abuse at each other?
Some of the most contentious debates currently occurring in democratic societies seem to have descended into virtual screaming matches. No one is listening to each other, no one is seeking to find a middle ground and seemingly few people are seeking to build bridges – our collective focus at the moment seems to be to tear each other down.
Of course, the reality is this has always been part of our political discourse. There is a healthy tradition of challenge in our public space. But… my concern is it is no longer on the fringes of our national conversations, it now dominates and the damage that it is doing is untold.
In the last week, we have seen academics compared to the KKK, a trans writer attacked for being long-listed for a literary prize for women and a new narrative on intersectional veganism which attacks other vegans for not considering the role of white supremacy in their eating habits.
I am not saying that people don’t have the right to these views – of course they do. Index on Censorship exists to ensure everyone’s rights to free expression. But that doesn’t mean that our words and deeds don’t have impact or consequence.
We witnessed in America only this year where this form of populist politics can lead to, at the extreme end – the storming of the Capitol. This week we’ve riots on the streets of Northern Ireland, again. Anti-Chinese hate crime has spiked post-Covid. In Belarus, Hungary and Poland we witness daily the appalling impact of the combination of this political polarisation and authoritarian-leaning governments. Words have consequence.
Index was launched half a century ago to provide a published space for dissidents to tell their stories and to publish their works. As we matured we provided a platform for people to debate some of the most contentious issues of the day, from the Cold War to fatwa to vaccine misinformation. We’ve done this in the spirit of providing a genuine space for free expression, a home to ensure that the hardest issues are discussed in an open, frank but measured way. That there is a space for actual debate and engagement. It is this tradition that we seek to emulate – which is why our magazine features considered commentators and thinkers tackling some of the thorniest issues of the day.
We all need a little nuance and context in our lives.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 Dec 20 | Magazine, Magazine Contents, Volume 49.04 Winter 2020
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Special report “][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Another explosion for Lebanon by Zahra Hankir and Kareem Chehayeb: The blast in Beirut made international headlines. Even before that the nation was in turmoil and it has only worsened the mental health crisis
Who will report on Nicaragua? by Jemimah Steinfeld: Bianca Jagger tells Index a clampdown on dissent and independent media is reaching new heights
Remembering Rex Cornelio by Ryan Macasero: Months on from the murder of Philippines radio host Rex Cornelio we speak to those who knew him about his bravery and his awful death
Royally silenced by Pavin Chachavalpongpun: As students campaign against lèse-majesté laws, the Thai exile and royal critic with a Facebook group of two million followers considers their fate
Another black day for Poland by Katarzyna Kasia: The attack on women’s reproductive rights caused mass protests. Duda’s re-election gave it legitimacy
Tearing down the ivory tower by Kaya Genç: Amidst the noise of the pandemic, a thriving Istanbul university was shut down with litle outcry
Ganging up against the truth by Chris Havler-Barrett: El Salvador’s government do not want you to hear about a potential deal they’ve made with the country’s biggest gang
Mexico’s deadliest state by Stephen Woodman: The government’s promise to protect journalists from harm is failing. Just look at the state of Veracruz
Europe’s new Orban by Anuška Delić: Janez Janša, Slovenia’s new prime minister, is mirroring the extreme policies of his Hungarian counterpart
Democracy vs the people by Andy Morgan: Mali has seen a government coup following escalating protests. What has caused the unrest?
“The state won’t protest you” by Natasha Joseph: The death of Robert Mugabe brought so much hope, but improvements to daily life have not come for Zimbabweans. Far from it
Dying for the mother tongue by Uradyn E Bulag: Why have people in Inner Mongolia recently taken their lives?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Global view “][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Hey, big brother – we’re watching you by Ruth Smeeth: We will fight louder and harder for those whose governments have taken away their freedoms[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”In focus”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Long march towards cultural genocide by Nick Holdstock: As news emerges of the present horrors happening in Xinjiang, an expert on the region looks at its recent history
How to challenge China by Tom Tugendhat, Lokman Tsui, Rushan Abbas & Anne-Marie Brady: How do we make a global power sit up and take notice? These experts offer advice
Abuse not part of journalists’ day job by Fréderike Geerdink: A reporter in the Netherlands has won a landmark case against her online harassers
Two faces of On Liberty by John Gray: Liberal institutions are becoming more censorial. Is the philosopher John Stuart Mill to blame?
Out with the old? by Robert Speel: Donald Trump’s conduct during and after the election appeared extraordinary, but a look at US history challenges that
The Sudanese revolution will be illustrated by Abraham Zere: A profile of Khalid Albaih, the political cartoonist dubbed “an enemy of the state”
Social media platforms have a moral duty to ban misinformation about vaccines by Julie Leask and Jonathan Kennedy: Two leading thinkers on vaccine hesitancy and misinformation debate this crucial question[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Culture “][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Fighting the propaganda tsars by Sergey Khazov-Cassia: The Russian writer speaks to Index about why his books are sold wrapped in plastic and shares an extract from The Gospel According To
Banning those who ban by Bothayna al-Essa: Jemimah Steinfeld talks to the Kuwaiti author about a landmark case in the country that saw a ban on books overturned. Plus an exclusive extract from al-Essa’s book Guardian of Superficialities
“Your limitless grief is a tale with no ending” by Joshua L Freeman: We publish the poetry of three Uighur poets – Abuqadir Jüme Tunyuquq, Idris Nurillah and Shahip Abdusalam Nurbeg – who have disappeared in China
Page turners or slow burners? by Leah Cross, Jessica Ní Mhainín & Marc Nash: New books reviewed on the murder of a Honduran activist, stories from a Tibetan town and a semi-autobiographical account of an artist in the USA[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Index around the world”][vc_column_text]World loses titans of free speech by Benjamin Lynch: A look at the free speech advocates that recently passed away including Sir Harold Evans[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Endnote”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Fighting for Covid information by Lauren Brown: Meet the people who are ensuring that even those in the most censored environments receive accurate information on the pandemic[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
03 Nov 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
A Women’s March in 2017. Credit: Mark Dixon/Flickr
“I had a second trimester abortion,” tweeted Erica Goldblatt Hyatt, a Canadian living in the USA. “Our son never formed an airway. Had he survived birth he would have been brain dead. That wasn’t the life I wanted for him. It was the first true parenting decision I ever made.”
Goldblatt Hyatt’s story was included in a CNN article, along with stories from a mother of two who didn’t want more children and a woman who got pregnant at 16 with no family support, about the reasons women have abortions.
Since the passing of Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court in 1973, abortion has been enshrined in law in the USA. Some states have restrictions on access to abortion, but the ruling that it is a legal right has remained in place.
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September, and her replacement by Amy Coney Barrett, has fuelled the fire of panic in women that this right could soon be snatched away, a panic they have felt since 2016 when Donald Trump said that if he is able to select enough justices for the bench, over-turning Roe v Wade “will happen automatically”.
The USA is not the only country where reproductive rights are being dismantled. Mass protests have broken out in Poland over the last few weeks after the constitutional court ruled that, even in the case of severe foetal abnormalities, women will be forced by law to carry the pregnancy to term. This is a further encroachment on reproductive freedom in a country that already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe.
The women of Northern Ireland are also facing barriers to reproductive freedom. Despite abortion being decriminalised in October 2019, access to clinics is severely lacking, prompting the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to write a letter, sections of which were published by the Independent on 26 October, warning of the risks to women.
“There have already been at least two cases of attempted suicide by women in Northern Ireland unable to access care,” it says, adding that there has been a dramatic increase in women “turning to unregulated methods of abortion during the pandemic.”
Reproductive rights are a freedom of expression issue. We do not only express ourselves verbally and artistically, we express ourselves through the choices we make about how we live our lives and what happens to our bodies. The decisions about when, if ever, to become a mother, and to how many children, are some of the biggest a woman can make. When states take control of this decision, they are taking control of our self-expression.
This is not to say that these decisions cannot be discussed and debated. Debate is at the heart of freedom of expression and that extends to the topic of abortion. People should be allowed to talk about the questions surrounding it, such as “when does life start?” For some it starts at the moment of conception, meaning abortion at any stage, even the very early weeks, would constitute ending a life. But this is not a consensus. And even if life does start at conception, that would not necessarily mean that abortion should be banned. After all, there are all kinds of practises that we allow as a society even if we question them morally because we believe banning them would ultimately go against freedom and autonomy.
Pro-life advocates must of course have their right to this view respected, and no one should force them to abort. But equally people attempting to force their beliefs on others, and control their actions to be in line with these beliefs, is when the defenders of freedom of expression must step in.
It should go without saying that the consequences of being forced to have a child are far-reaching. There’s the toll on mental health for one. According to research by scientists at King’s College London one in four pregnant women suffer from mental health problems. This can be even more extreme for those in unwanted pregnancies. In 2017 a young woman, who became known as Ms Y, sued the official health service in Ireland after she was not only denied an abortion but held against her will and forced medication to prolong the pregnancy. She had arrived in Ireland in 2014 seeking asylum and soon discovered she was pregnant. She said she’d been raped and was suicidal because of the pregnancy.
Research also shows that having a baby can hold a woman’s career back six years. Inflicting career disruptions on women by forcing them to continue with unwanted pregnancies is an infringement on their self-expression in the workplace that can have long-spanning repercussions. And then there are all the negative impacts it can have on relationships, finances, social support networks – the list could go on. None of these are trivial matters. Rather they’re all choices that are part of our free expression.
The Polish ruling also highlights that many abortions are because either the baby or the mother, or both, are seriously ill. Abortion is not always a lifestyle choice. It is often a very traumatic decision a woman is forced to make about an intended pregnancy. Heart-breaking as these decisions undoubtedly are, the most profound forms of expression are often the choices we make about our health and that of our families.
Incidentally, as is often the case with censoring behaviour, removing someone’s choice can actually be counter-productive. A study by the National Library of Medicine concluded that women who had had an abortion were more likely to have an intended pregnancy within the next five years than women forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Diane Greene Foster, one of the academics who conducted the study, concluded: “Being able to access abortion gives women the opportunity to have a child later with the right partner, at the right time”. She added that a woman who is denied an abortion is likely to “face diminished opportunities to achieve other life goals, gain secure financial footing, and have a child she can cherish and support”.
Remaining childless, or having children with the right partner when it is the right time to do so, is an umbrella of self-expression under which so many other forms of expression shelter; expression through work, through lifestyle choices, through parenting ability. It is a form of expression which must remain in the hands of individuals and be kept out of the grips of the state.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
