This is pretty much EXACTLY how it happened, courtesy of Taiwan’s NMA TV
For more than 20 years, Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s classic novel, A Clockwork Orange, was banned from cinemas in the UK.
Kubrick was known for his shocking and crass, but altogether original, forays into directing. His interpretation of Burgess’s novel was considered exceptionally scandalous for its depictions of sexual and physical violence. But it wasn’t public outrage that triggered its banning – the director himself pulled the film from circulation in 1973, over concerns about reports of copycat violence and threats to both his and his family’s safety. It wasn’t until 1999, after Kubrick’s death, that his family agreed to permit the release of the film again.
This censorship happened despite no legal requirements – the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) judged the film to be acceptable for adults over the age of 18, and at no point rescinded this. There were legitimate concerns about violence resulting from the film, which should not be underestimated – but the decision did also result in the censorship of one of the most seminal pieces of film and literature of the 20th century, which ironically is, in itself, about the concept of free will.
This example may feel like a relic of a simpler time – we could argue that the internet has desensitised us to violence, and individuals are far more likely to be radicalised by unfettered scrolling on their phone rather than a visit to the cinema. But films of artistic and newsworthy importance are still being censored globally, for fears of the real-world repercussions.
This week, the London Film Festival cancelled its screening of a new investigative documentary on the UK’s far right over safety concerns for festival staff and attendees – particularly in response to the violent riots that took place over the summer. Undercover: Exposing the Far Right is a brave feat of journalism produced by the anti-fascist advocacy group Hope Not Hate. While it is available to watch on Channel 4, it lost its initial impact of a premiere.
Kristy Matheson, the director of the festival, said the decision to cancel was “heartbreaking” but that she had been left with no other viable option. “I think the film is exceptional and easily one of the best documentaries I have seen this year,” she said. “However, festival workers have the right to feel safe and that their mental health and well being is respected in their workplace.”
Outside of the UK, screenings of another documentary film were recently cancelled in Taiwan following bomb threats. Some cinemas subsequently halted showings of State Organs – a controversial film that reports on alleged cases of forced organ harvesting in China – after they received threatening letters, which the Taiwan police say are likely the work of Chinese cybersecurity forces.
Threats of violence appear to have become a routine way to silence artistic, political or journalistic expression. Concerns around such real-world threats are extremely valid, with historical examples such as the awful murders of the MPs Jo Cox and David Amess proving this.
But the risk of giving into such threats can be to further embolden radical groups, make their voices more powerful, and stop them being held to account. “Safety must always be an utmost priority,” said Nick Lowles, CEO at Hope not Hate, of the Undercover screening cancellation. “But we can’t deny that it is disappointing to see the brave work of our staff being denied the widest possible audience. Now, more than ever, the true nature of the far right, in Britain and abroad, needs to be exposed.”
There is also the worry that issues of safety or national security may be used as an excuse to avoid contentious films that invite public scrutiny. This year, both Israeli and Palestinian film events have faced screening cancellations due to what theatres have cited as “safety concerns” or worries around appearing politically biased – but in reality, have been partly influenced by lobbying from groups on both sides. Film-makers are not responsible for their governments’ actions, said Odelia Haroush, the co-founder of the Israeli Seret Film Festival. Referring to cinemas and theatres, she said: “Their role should be to show films and culture, and not cancel culture. Especially now; don’t cancel Palestinian culture, Russian culture, Ukrainian culture, or Israeli culture.”
All of this is not to blame the already financially-stretched creative industries, which do not need the added stress of potentially violent attacks or protests. Extensive security measures and staff training are often additional expenses they cannot afford, and therefore, many event organisers decide that the risks of free expression far outweigh the benefits.
People’s safety must always be paramount, and there is no justification for favouring a film screening over individuals’ lives. But there is a concern that restricting people’s viewing access – whether that be to vital information or cultural enrichment – out of fear may only embolden those wishing to silence others’ through violence.
It is September and the kids are back at school. Many will likely be excited for the year ahead but perhaps not Hong Kong students. They’re returning to a new lesson: Xi Jinping Thought. As announced this week, the curriculum has been updated in secondary schools to include teachings from China’s leader. The new module aims to instil “patriotic education”.
I pity these kids, I really do. Firstly because unlike Mao, who many saw as a great wordsmith (a tyrant yes but a tyrant who could write lyrically and coin a zinger, “revolution is not a dinner party” being one classic example), Xi’s words are flat. The Economist declared his Thought “woolly: a hodgepodge of Dengist and Maoist terminology combined with mostly vague ideas on topics ranging from the environment (making China “beautiful”) to building a “world-class” army.” The academic Kevin Carrico studied his Thought through a distance-learning course and wrote that it was impoverished. “It comes across as a cash-rich North Korea,” he said. I’ve never got very far. Sentences like “The fundamental reason why some of our comrades have weak ideals and faltering beliefs is that their views lack a firm grounding in historical materialism” contain too many words and too little meaning.
But beyond criticising the content is a much bigger issue. As one Hongkonger said in response to the announcement, it’s “brainwashing”. That it is. And more than that. It’s another way to strip Hong Kong of its unique identity. The curriculum is aimed at “cultivating students’ sense of nationhood, affection for our country and sense of national identity” and by identity that means one dictated through the narrow lens of the Chinese Communist Party from Beijing.
Since it was introduced formally in China in 2017, Xi Jinping Thought has become a mainstay of academic life throughout the country for all levels of students. In our forthcoming Autumn magazine, which looks at how scientists are being attacked worldwide, Chinese novelist Murong Xuecun lays bare some of the absurdities of this:
“Every scientist needs to study Xi’s speeches and thoughts. Their Western counterparts may not be able to empathise with this but imagine a group of physicists or astronomy professors sitting in a conference room at MIT or Harvard, studying Donald Trump’s or Joe Biden’s speeches, and then considering how much it would help in their research.”
Xi Jinping Thought should be relegated to the history books not promoted to textbooks. But classrooms have always been central to Beijing’s ambitions in Hong Kong, which partly explains why many of the protest leaders were students. In 2010, for example, then Hong Kong chief executive Donald Tsang announced plans to change primary education so that its messages were more in line with the CCP (one teaching manual called the CCP an “advanced, selfless and united ruling group”). These plans were shelved due to widespread protests, protests which themselves were later removed or reworded in textbooks. More recently, in 2022 history textbooks were rewritten to downplay the city’s colonial past. Today they’re taking the textbook meddling one step further.
Here’s a kicker: interference in textbooks by Beijing is happening in the UK too. The Telegraph reported this week that British GCSE books were edited to remove references to Taiwan after complaints from Chinese officials. The AQA GCSE Chinese textbook deleted references to “the Republic of China” (Taiwan) from subsequent editions. The first edition of the GCSE textbook said: “Yangmingshan National Park is the third national park of the Republic of China, and the park is located in the northern part of Taipei City.” Later editions: “Yangmingshan National Park is a very famous national park.”
The UK is not Hong Kong and the CCP cares a lot less about what British textbooks contain. And yet they still clearly care. There’s a long road to be taken before a few words removed from a Mandarin-teaching title turns into Xi Jinping Thought on the UK syllabus and it’s encouraging that Lord Alton raised the issue in Parliament this week. We must not journey further down this road and not just because his Thought is deathly dull.
Finally, on the note of back to school a reminder of the many girls of Afghanistan who are not starting school at all. Last year we gave the Index campaigning award to Matiullah Wesa, who together with his brother founded Pen Path, a remarkable organisation dedicated to improving girls’ education in Afghanistan. For over a decade, Wesa has travelled the country with his mobile library, distributing books to children and working to establish schools in conflict-riven areas. Today he meets with Taliban leaders to call for schools to be reopened for girls. Wesa is a frequent target of the Taliban and has been imprisoned. He dreams of a time when he can retire this work because access to education – a universal right – is respected and promoted in Afghanistan. Today that dream has never felt further away.
All of the above reinforces a line we often say at Index: freedoms are hard won and easily lost. So students: cherish learning, enjoy debate and never take the ability to enquire more, to read widely and to speak freely for granted.
Boxer Imane Khelif broke down in tears last week following her victory over Hungary’s Luca Anna Hamori in the welterweight quarter final at the 2024 Paris Olympics guaranteed her a medal. It was an emotional moment for the Algerian not just in terms of her sporting achievement but because she had spent the past week embroiled in a misinformation storm.
Khelif – who is now guaranteed at least a silver medal after her victory over Thailand’s Janjaem Suwannapheng – was labelled as transgender in several viral social media posts, an inaccuracy which was then parroted by some news organisations and politicians. Khelif is neither transgender nor identifies as intersex.
Much of the recent viral outrage at Khelif’s Olympic success stemmed from a claim by the Russian-led International Boxing Association in 2023 that she and fellow boxer Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan had failed certain gender tests. These tests have never been published and are, as of today, unverified. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) revoked the IBA ruling, stating the decision was “arbitrary”, “sudden” and “taken without any proper procedure”.
The disqualification resulting from the IBA tests also apparently came after Khelif beat a Russian prospect at an IBA event.
There have been mixed reports over the content of the apparently secret gender testing, with IBA president Umar Kremlev claiming in a chaotic press conference that the pair had high levels of testosterone while the organisation’s chief executive alleged these were actually chromosome tests. Even beyond the lack of cohesion and clarity, the issue with sex testing itself is that every version invites criticism when scrutinised because most sports are organised according to a strict male-female binary, while nature does not follow such a binary – sex is more complex than that.
The IBA does not oversee Olympic boxing. Their credibility was seriously damaged in recent years following longstanding accusations of a lack of transparency and poor governance. They were finally suspended as boxing’s governing body and stripped of involvement in the Olympic games. Neither the IOC nor World Boxing endorse the ruling made by the IBA.
The IBA has close links to Vladimir Putin and Russia, a country which has been involved in massive misinformation campaigns around the Olympic games because their athletes were not allowed to compete under the Russian flag.
According to AP, Russian bots have been responsible for amplifying the Khelif controversy. The story was soon picked up by voices with huge followings, including billionaire X owner Elon Musk. It travelled beyond social media, with several news organisations and politicians wrongfully asserting that Khelif is transgender. US-based newspaper The Boston Globe were forced to issue an apology for labelling Khelif as transgender in one of their headlines. Fox News also labelled her as a transgender boxer live on air, while host Ainsley Earhardt wrongly described her as someone who identifies as a trans woman. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump repeated these false claims.
The dangers of misinformation have been well-documented in the age of social media but are as relevant as ever in sewing division. Fake news spreading on social media sites is currently fuelling a number of political agendas and was cited as one of the catalysts for the far-right Islamophobic and anti-immigration riots in the UK.
BBC disinformation correspondent Marianna Spring, who deals with such viral mistruths on a daily basis, told Index in February that the unregulated spread of misinformation can cause real-world harm, so it’s crucial in a free society to call it out.
“If you are being repeatedly hounded or abused online, your freedom of expression is compromised,” she explained. “What I’m doing is exposing the harm these extremist truths can cause rather than policing what people can say.”
Khelif herself has been subjected to hate and abuse on a huge scale, as has Yu-ting, who is also competing at the games and is guaranteed a medal. IOC president Thomas Bach condemned the narrative surrounding the two athletes, calling it “politically motivated”.
“All this hate speech, with this aggression and abuse, and fuelled by this agenda, is totally unacceptable,” he said during a news briefing.
Even more worryingly, these allegations could have had serious consequences when you consider that in Algeria – Khelif’s home country – being transgender is illegal.
There are legitimate questions in a free society to be raised around gender in sport and the IOC’s Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations was criticised by some international sports medicine bodies in 2022. No one should be silenced for asking these questions or having the conversation.
But the heat around Khelif has not been about asking questions. Instead the issue here is one of jumping to conclusions. What could have been a heartwarming story of a woman finding sporting success against all odds became a cautionary tale of the dangers of misinformation and the speed at which unchecked information or false claims can be spread on social media platforms, endangering people’s lives and distorting reality. Who wins the gold medal here? Russia.