Dieudonne is a racist. And he has a right to free speech

dieudonneIt’s coming up to the seventh anniversary of the death of Hrant Dink. Just today, two people have been arrested in connection with his assassination.

Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist, understood censorship and free speech more than most. In Turkey, the Armenian genocide of the early 20th century remains taboo, and discussion of it can result in charges under the infamous article 301 of the country’s criminal code – the crime of “insulting Turkishness”.

Recognition of the genocide is an important part of Armenian identity, and many Armenians in the the country itself, Turkey, and the wider diaspora were pleased when, in 2006, French politicians proposed a law making denial of the Armenian genocide illegal. But Dink, understanding that censorious laws hurt everyone, dissented, saying:

“As you know, I have been tried in Turkey for saying the Armenian genocide exists, and I have talked about how wrong this is. But at the same time, I cannot accept that in France you could possibly now be tried for denying the Armenian genocide. If this bill becomes law, I will be among the first to head for France and break the law. Then we can watch both the Turkish Republic and the French government race against each other to condemn me. We can watch to see which will throw me into jail first”

Dink was assassinated, and the bill was blocked, though it reared its head again in 2012, only to be deemed unconstitutional.

One wonders what Dink would have made of president Francois Hollande’s bid to ban public performances by comic and political activist Dieudonne, inventor of the “qeunelle” gesture – an inverted Nazi salute dressed up as an “anti-establishment” gesture. Dieudonne, who ran on an “anti-Zionist” platform in the last election, says there is nothing anti-Semitic about the quenelle, a claim undermined by the spread of pictures of smirking fans quenelling near synagogues, holocaust memorials and even outside the Marseilles Jewish school where three children and a religion teacher were shot down in cold blood in 2012.

It’s important to be clear on this: the quenelle is an anti-Semitic gesture. Dieudonne’s defenders, such illustrious figures as Diane Johnstone and Alain Soral (what we might call the Counterpunch Left), will claim that it is not.

But that is because they are defending Dieudonne’s views, rather than Dieudonne’s right to free speech. It’s an important distinction. Too often, we either attempt to defend free speech by downplaying what’s actually being said (“it’s not that bad”), or claiming it’s something that it’s not (“this isn’t actually racist; it’s, er…”)

Similarly we attempt to justify shutting down free speech by saying something is not a matter of free speech, or worse, resorting to the fact of an existing law or prevalent social mores rather than making a moral argument (as Bernard-Henri Lévy did while discussing the Dieudonne case on theBBC’s Today programme).

A genuine defence of free speech demands that we look what’s happening directly in the eye.

The quenelle is anti-semitic. Dieudonne is anti-semitic. Dieudonne has a right to free speech.

Hrant Dink would have understood that.

European Union to further reduce the UN human rights budget

In a joint letter to Baroness Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, Index on Censorship has joined 66 human rights NGOs from European Union member States, States from the European Partnership and States in cooperation with the European Union stress that the intent to reduce OHCHR’s budget is a signal in the wrong direction. The programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015 for 2014-2015 already decreases the budget of OHCHR by a net 4.8%, whilst the promotion and protection of human rights represents only 3% of the overall UN budget.

Keeping in mind that within the overall UN budget, the share allocated to the promotion and protection of human rights represents approximately 3%, the intent to reduce OHCHR’s budget is a signal in the wrong direction. Soon the Human Rights Council will celebrate its 10 years of existence – we believe that all States and group of States aiming at promoting human rights should ambition to raise that share to at least 10% to celebrate the 10 years of existence of the Council, which will be made impossible if the European Union continues to pressure for more and more “across the board” cuts in the UN’s human rights budget.

20 years after the Office was established, does the European Union really want to a force contributing to undermining the sustainability of OHCHR, hence weakening the voice for human rights within the UN system?

Azerbaijan Human Rights House (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Association for Protection of Womens’ Rights
Azerbaijan Lawyers Association
Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan
Institute for Peace and Democracy
Legal Education Society
Women’s Association for Rational Development
Media Rights Institute
Public Union of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre
Society for Humanitarian Research
Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius

Human Rights House Belgrade (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Belgrade Centre for Human Rights
Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
Policy Center

Human Rights House Kiev (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement (Association UMDPL)
Center for Civil Liberties
Human Rights Information Center
Human Rights House Tbilisi (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Article 42 of the Constitution
Caucasian Centre for Human Rights and Conflict Studies
Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims
Human Rights Centre
Media Centre
Union Sapari – Family without Violence

Human Rights House Oslo (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
Health and Human Rights Info
Norwegian Helsinki Committee

Human Rights House Voronezh (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Charitable Foundation
Civic Initiatives Development Centre
Confederation of Free Labor
For Ecological and Social Justice
Free University
Golos
Interregional Trade Union of Literary Men
Lawyers for labor rights
Memorial
Ms. Olga Gnezdilova
Soldiers Mothers of Russia
Voronezh Journalist Club
Voronezh-Chernozemie
Youth Human Rights Movement

Human Rights House Yerevan (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Armenian Helsinki Association
Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor
Jurists against Torture
Guaranteeing Equal Opportunities
Shahkhatun
Socioscope
Women’s Resource Center

Human Rights House Zagreb (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Association for Promotion of Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities
B.a.B.e. – Be active, Be emancipated
Centre for Peace Studies
Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past
GOLJP – Civic Committee for Human Rights
Svitanje – Association for Protection and Promotion of Mental Health

Russian Research Centre for Human Rights (on behalf of the following NGOs):

Human Rights Network Group
Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia
Moscow Centre for Prison Reform
Moscow Helsinki Group
Mother’s Right Foundation
Non-violence International
Right of the Child
Right to Live and Have Civil Dignity
Social Partnership FoundationUnion of the Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland

Human Rights Club, Azerbaijan

Rafto Foundation, Norway

Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)

Index on Censorship

Five things Aliyev doesn’t want you to know about Azerbaijan’s presidential election

Demotix - PanARMENIAN Photo

Looking forward to another election win. (Photo: PanArmenian / Demotix)

Tomorrow, on 9 October, Azerbaijan will hold a presidential election, with incumbent President Ilham Aliyev seeking a third term in office. Although the government and its supporters have been working hard to promote a positive image of Azerbaijan abroad, at home, they continue to crack down on citizens’ ability to exercise their basic rights and fundamental freedoms, in an apparent effort to silence all voices of criticism and dissent.

Despite superficial efforts to make the election look like a serious competition – for example, by registering a staggering 10 candidates – there is not an even playing field for all candidates. The only candidate widely agreed to be independent, united opposition candidate Jamil Hasanli, is fighting an uphill battle with limited resources against a powerful incumbent with the full resources of an oil-rich state behind him.

Below, I examine five of the main underlying issues presenting challenges to the fair and free conduct of this election, unsavoury truths that the authorities would rather not be included in reporting on this election. As a result of these and other issues, regardless of what now happens on election day, the chances of a democratic election have effectively been eliminated. The underlying climate has simply not allowed for a fair competition.

1. There are 142 people locked up for political reasons in Azerbaijan

At a press conference in Brussels in June, President Aliyev stated: “None of my political opponents is in prison. There are no political prisoners in Azerbaijan”. These claims simply are not true. A new list from the Baku-based Human Rights Club outlines 142 current cases of politically motivated detention and imprisonment in Azerbaijan. These include journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, civic and political activists, religious followers, and ordinary citizens, many of whom were targeted for exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

One of Azerbaijan’s political prisoners is the Republican Alternative (REAL) movement’s would-be presidential candidate, Ilgar Mammadov, who has been detained since February. After visiting the region of Ismayilli to investigate on-going protests, he was then charged with inciting violent protest, and faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted. Although REAL was able to gather the more than 40,000 signatures required to register a presidential candidate, the Central Election Commission declared some of the signatures invalid and refused to register Mammadov’s candidacy.

2. Aliyev has gotten far greater media coverage in the country than any of his opponents

Azerbaijan’s state-controlled broadcast media rarely shows opposition figures. Out of Azerbaijan’s nine national television stations, three are directly owned by the state, five are privately owned but controlled by the state, and the public service broadcaster, Ictimai, is failing to fulfil its role as a public service broadcaster as it does not provide balanced and varied programming. In contrast to the hours of television coverage incumbent President Aliyev receives every day throughout the year, the other presidential candidates have received only 18 minutes of airtime each week for the three weeks of the campaign period.

Three independent media outlets which have been relegated to the Internet since a 2009 ban took them off the air – the Azerbaijani services of the BBC, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Voice of America – have been accused by the Central Election Commission of being in “propaganda mode” during the campaign period – presumably for daring to cover the opposition’s campaign activities, and not just the president’s.

3. The opposition is challenging Aliyev’s right to run for a third term

This is perhaps the most significant factor making this election stand out from previous elections in Azerbaijan, and may account for the unprecedented crackdown in the run-up to the election: the opposition claims that Aliyev does not have the constitutional right to run for a third term in office. The united opposition candidate, Jamil Hasanli, has filed a legal appeal in this regard, which will be examined by the Baku Court of Appeals today.

What is the basis of this appeal? When Aliyev came to power in 2003, and when he was re-elected in 2008, there was a two-term limit on the Azerbaijani presidency. This limit was removed through a Constitutional referendum in 2009. Hasanli and his supporters argue, however, that the changes do not apply retroactively to Aliyev, but should apply instead to his successor, meaning he does not have the right to run for a third term.

Further, University of Sydney Professor Wojciech Sadurski issued a legal opinion arguing that Azerbaijan’s removal of the term limitation was done in an undemocratic manner, contrary to the principles of openness and transparency. Sadurski considered this action to be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Azerbaijan is party.

4. Azerbaijan has not had a fair and free election since Aliyev came to power

Including the election that brought Ilham Aliyev to power in 2003, Azerbaijan has held two presidential elections and two parliamentary elections in the past 10 years. All fell far short of meeting international standards for democratic elections, largely due to restrictions of freedom of expression and assembly in the pre-election period, resulting in a lack of robust competition and vibrant political discourse.

The Azerbaijani government seems intent on repeating its past mistakes with this election. The most recent interim report issued by the OSCE/ODIHR’s election observation mission highlighted similar problems to previous election periods, noting that the campaign period “has been marred by some reported incidents of intimidation of family members of political figures.” The report also concludes that “the campaign has lacked substantive debate and has focused on personality rather than concrete political platform” and states “the incumbent President received a much greater amount of coverage in news programmes on television in comparison to other political actors.”

5. Azerbaijan is failing to fulfil its human rights obligations with all major international bodies

The fact that Azerbaijan is failing to fulfil its human rights obligations with the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and the United Nations (UN), and its human rights agreements with the European Union, is the elephant in the room, both in the context of this election and in broader international relations with Azerbaijan.

The pattern of systematic and widespread violations of human rights by the Azerbaijani authorities is well documented. Just last week, three UN special mandates, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner all spoke out with concerns related to human rights violations in the pre-election period.

Despite this knowledge, the political leadership of these bodies and their member states remain reluctant to seriously address these shortcomings. As a result, the Azerbaijani authorities continue to act with impunity, certain that their failure to implement their human rights commitments will not result in serious consequences for other areas of their bilateral and multilateral relations. How then can they be expected to behave differently in this election period?

But rather than write off this election – as some international media outlets have already done, pre-emptively declaring another victory for Aliyev – the international community must take note of what happens and take a stand. International observers must report accurately and fully on the election, and the government must be held accountable for shortcomings through the full political weight of the organizations behind the reports and their individual member states. Azerbaijan cannot continue to be treated as a privileged member of the international democratic community without the credentials to back it up.

And most importantly, the international community must sustain attention to Azerbaijan well beyond the election period. Local journalists, human rights defenders, and activists fear a post-election crackdown even harsher than what occurred in the run-up to the election. If these remaining few critical voices are successfully silenced, then many more elections in Azerbaijan will follow suit as foregone conclusions.

This article was originally published on 8 Oct 2013 at indexoncensorship.org

 

Who nominated Vladimir Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Press briefing after the talks between Putin and Merkel - Berlin

There was much raising of eyebrows yesterday when it was announced that Russia’s “International Academy of Spiritual Unity and Cooperation” are putting forward Vladimir Putin as a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. But who are the International Academy of Spiritual Unity and Cooperation.

A source suggests to Index that they are “a typical pseudo cultural organisation” that gets budgets for loyalty to Putin and is ruled by ex-Soviet nomenclature. But judging by this list of presidents, vice presidents, and Heroes of the USSR, they are very, very important people indeed. (Source)

Composition of the Management Board and the Academy
The President
Trepeznikov Shilov

First Vice-President
Gennady Zgersky,

First Vice-President
Alexander Leonidovich Manilow

First Vice-President
Topchiy Sergei Stepanovich

First Vice-President
Paul P. Petrik,

First Vice-President
Taras Shamba Myronovych,

The first vice-president
Sergei K. Kamkov.

Vice – President
Viktor Gorbatko – twice Hero of the Soviet Union (astronaut), B

Vice – President
Mikhail Tikhomirov – Advisor to the President of the Russian Olympic Committee

Vice – President
Aliyev Phase Gamzatovna folk poet of Dagestan,

Vice – President
Sergey Makarov

Vice – President
Malik – Ohanjanian Rafael Gegamovich – Branch Manager in Armenia

Vice – President
Todash Guinn, Head of the Representation in Japan

Vice – President
Yankovskaya Ludmila – Head of Representation in Ukraine

Vice – President
Bishop Vissarion – Head of Mission in Abkhazia, head of the Orthodox Church in Abkhazia,

Vice – President
Stoyan Topalov – Head of Representation in Bulgaria

Members of the Presidium

Sergei Shamba Tarasovich – Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia.
Glebov Vladimir Vladimirovich – Academician of the Academy of Architecture.
Dadaev Gadzhievich Felix – People’s Artist of the USSR.
Antoshkin Nicholas T. – Hero of the Soviet Union.
Bepko Yegorov – Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary (MFA).
Yuri Dubinin – Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary (MFA).
Primakov Yevgeny Primakov – Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary (MFA), President of the Chamber of Commerce of the Russian Federation.
Peter A. Makarov – Project Manager CNNS Russia.
Kabzon Iosif Davidovich – People’s Artist of the USSR.
Rogozhkin Nicholas E. – Deputy. Minister for the Interior Ministry, Interior Troops Commander of the Russian Federation.
Ivan Sergeyev – Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary (MFA).
Alexander Golubev Titovich – Chairman of the RAF veterans’ organization.
Kuz’kina Galina – a journalist, deputy. chief editor of the magazine “Our Power.”
Valentin A. Prikhodko – gene. Director of the “Pride of Russia”.
Sergei Baburin, rector of the institute.
Novozhylov Valery Yu – Major – General of the Russian Federation Ministry of Internal Affairs of explosives.
Zalikhanov Michael Chukkaevich – Hero of the Soviet Union, deputy of the State. Duma
Samvel Samvel Grigoryan – Academician of the AHP.
Valentina Tereshkova – the pilot – cosmonaut.
Arthur N. Chilingarov – the hero of the Soviet Union, Hero of the Russian Federation, the deputy of the State. Duma.
Mesenzhnik Jacob Z. – Academician of the Academy of science and business.
Mikhail Vinogradov – Head of Federal Agency for Industry.
Aydarov Letcho Ayubovich – gene. manager of the “Larakas” in Moscow.