Bringing the Story Home – Trojan Horse in Birmingham

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”111616″ img_size=”large” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]The story of the Trojan Horse Affair hit the national press in early 2014. “Hardline” Muslim teachers and governors were accused of plotting to take over the running of a cluster of Birmingham schools. Adapted from the real-life testimonies of those at the heart of the UK government’s inquiry, Lung Theatre investigates what really happened in this case. Originally developed with Leeds Playhouse, Trojan Horse, winner of an Amnesty International Freedom of Expression award, the 75-minute verbatim play was created out of 200 hours of interviews and performed by a cast of five actors playing multiple roles. A simultaneous translation into Urdu was made available via headsets and a bilingual edition of the play is published by Oberon Books.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”What made the play controversial?” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The play Trojan Horse sets out to give voice to the people at the centre of the so-called Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham, a scandal involving claims of an alleged conspiracy to introduce an Islamist or Salafist ethos into several schools in Birmingham, England, after a letter sent to the local council was leaked to the press. Allegations in the letter triggered an investigation by government inspectors, which found evidence of some of the directors and teachers of the schools holding homophobic and misogynistic views and of pupil segregation. A case was conducted against the school teachers, but eventually collapsed because of a mishandling of evidence by the prosecution.

Political advisor Nick Timothy, writing about the premiere of the play at the Edinburgh Festival in 2018, objected strongly to the play’s characterisation of events. Rather than accepting that Trojan Horse was a plot “by hardline Muslims to convert secular state schools into austere Islamic faith schools” the play puts forward the idea that it was a government campaign, motivated by “institutionalised racism”, that “demonised” Birmingham’s Muslim community”. Timothy calls this interpretation of events a “fiction that has been contradicted by countless investigations” and concludes his article by arguing that “any attempt to rewrite the history of the Trojan Horse, must not be allowed to succeed”.  

In their book Countering Extremism in British Schools? The Truth about the Trojan Horse Affair, academics John Holmwood, who advises Lung Theatre on this production, and Theresa O’Toole argue that the TH affair was a “fabrication” on the part of the government and supported by some factions in the media used to justify the introduction of the Prevent Duty, which many believe has had a significant impact on freedom of expression in schools, especially with sizeable Muslim student population. As journalist Samira Shackle says in an article for The Guardian: “The documents alleging a conspiracy to Islamise Birmingham schools were debunked – but the story remains as divisive as ever.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Art and censorship” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]This case study forms part of Index on Censorship’s work on art and censorship and explores in particular the challenges in mounting politically sensitive work, and work that relates to the experiences of traditionally marginalised communities.

The aim of this case study series is not to assess the artistic merits of an artwork — but rather to reflect on lessons learned by writers, venues, audiences — on how best to support the creation and production of challenging work.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Development of the play” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

Collaborative approach to script writing

Throughout this project the authors had long  debate with the teachers, pupils and governors whose testimonies drive the narrative of the play. It was clear that the play had to be as accessible to detractors — including members of parliament, those in the teaching profession and those engaged in counter-extremism work — as it was to people in Alum Rock, the Birmingham suburb where the schools were situated. The authors worked with the protagonists and script consultant Aisha Khan from Freedom Studios in Bradford for two years. 

Support at development stage

Gilly Rhodes, the new work producer at Leeds Playhouse supported the play from the outset. Woodhead and Monks said that she was the only person to believe in the show from the very beginning: “No one else wanted to take the risk.” Rhodes told Index she was “convinced by the rigour with which Lung approached the subject” and the theatre’s artistic development programme, Furnace, allowed them to work over an extended period. Rhodes witnessed how Monks, from Birmingham herself and Woodhead, a local artist, at first struggled to get the show into venues, but how, once it won an Amnesty International Freedom of Expression Award and an Edinburgh First at the Fringe, venues started to take note.

Building relationships with political figures

Early on in the process, the authors interviewed Sayeeda Warsi, a Conservative member of the House of Lords, who was interested in the project as part of her campaign to raise awareness of Islamophobia in the Conservative party. Baroness Warsi agreed to host the play at the Houses of Parliament in March 2020, at the invitation of the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, which she chairs. Baroness Warsi also wrote the forward to the publication of the play script. The APPG and other Westminster MPs are a key target audience for the play allowing it to fulfil one of its goals: to speak truth directly to power.

Outreach work

A dedicated Engagement Manager, Mediha Ansari Khan, joined the team. Ansari Khan’s role was to build trust with the communities where she encountered suspicion about theatre in general and confusion in particular about what the the play was trying to achieve and why it had not been written by a British Muslim. In spite of these difficulties Ansari Khan was very positive about the engagement in the post-show question and answer sessions, which formed a key component of the outreach strategy for the play. “We have started a discourse with the Muslim community – the conversation has always been there but we are encouraging more people to talk about this,” Ansari Khan said. “A lot of people were very fearful about talking about terrorism and extremism and Prevent Duty – we are trying to remove some of the fear, that is the first step before any government level change – mobilising people to talk about it, to question their councillors and people in authority,” she told Index.

Supportive venue

Midland Arts Centre  – a leading UK arts venue – championed the play and defended the decision to bring the story back to Birmingham despite considerable pressure internally and externally to pull the play. The venue welcomed the writers and key protagonists into the space in the year leading up to the performance, so that by the time the play was performed, the protagonists had a strong sense of ownership in the building.1

Performing in Birmingham – ‘bringing the story home’

The performances in Birmingham were, according to co-author and director Matt Woodhead, “the whole point really. The debate had been so one-sided and the teachers and governors had not had the means to amplify their side of the story. Being able to stand up and say something uninterrupted in front of 220 people at the MAC was important.”

Post-show Q&As

Every show was followed by a question and answer session, giving the audience space and time to engage with the issues the play raised. This was an integral part of the how the tour was conceived.

Inviting protagonists to Q&A

Tahir Alam, the chair of governors of one who the schools involved in the TH scandal who was subsequently banned from involvement in schools, was one of many of those involved directly in the affair to attend the post-show discussions. He attended as many as he could around the country and all the post shows in Birmingham. He emphasised the importance of this: “When you see the real people, you are reminded it is not fictional,” he told Index.

Managing the Q&As

Critics of the play had, according to co-author Helen Monks, raised concerns about the Q&A session in particular because, she said, they argued the “audience would not be able to handle open debate”. The team put in place show-stop procedures — procedures for rapid and controlled interruption of a performance — for the cast and stage manager in case of hostility.  The Q&A host had methods of managing disrespectful or hostile speakers from the floor and the front of house team were all heavily briefed with how to deal with disruptive individuals. All went ahead without incident. Helen Monks said: “The Q&As felt like really safe-spaces even when people weren’t agreeing with each other.” 

Academic advisor to the play

John Holmwood, Professor of Sociology at the University of Nottingham, was an expert witness for the defence in the cases of professional misconduct brought against senior teachers and governors at Park View Educational Trust by the National College of Teaching and Leadership and co-author of Countering Extremism in British Schools? The Truth about the Trojan Horse Affair. He has exhaustive knowledge of the affair and brought gravitas to the young company. He acted as an advisor to the play, reading early versions of the script, and went out on the autumn tour, speaking on all the post show Q&As.  

Questionnaires

These were handed out after every show. The feedback is being processed and analysed by the play’s outreach manager at time of writing.

Translation into Urdu

The play was available as a simultaneous translation on headsets at every performance on the tour as an essential offer to target audiences and there was significant audience take up. It was translated by Ayesha Manazir Siddiqui who wrote publicly about her concerns with the script. In their response, published here for the first time, the authors describe how their collaborative methodology ensured that the story was directed throughout by the people at the centre of the story.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]1. AD/CEO of MAC, Debbie Kermode, told Index in an interview: “Trojan Horse was an important and meaningful play for us to support as it allowed an alternative perspective and voice to the community, and we took it on proudly and paid considerable attention to work we did around it. We invested our own funds to support the translation of the play into Urdu and the supported outreach work. We worked with residents in Alum Rock, families and ex-pupils who supported the play and the issues raised, which they felt passionate about sharing. We approached the Core Education Trust which in 2015 took over the running of the schools caught up in the Trojan Horse Affair, with a strong desire to build a partnership, however unfortunately for many reasons the school leadership resisted any engagement with us, and voiced serious concerns about MAC taking the play.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”What obstacles did the production encounter in Birmingham?” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

Pressure on venue to cancel the show

Adrian Packer, CEO and co-founder of Core Education Trust which in 2015 took over the running of some of the schools implicated in the Trojan Horse Affairs, contacted the MAC to express concerns about the play coming to Birmingham. According to AD/CEO of MAC, Debbie Kermode, the trust cited the need to keep the children in the schools safe and also raised the threat of protest from the parents. Members of the trust’s board of directors contacted MAC trustees and a trust board member accused Kermode of having an extremist agenda. “So it got quite personal and unpleasant,” she said. This allegation of pursuing an extremist agenda echoed political advisor Nick Timothy’s claim, that people who supported the play “[d]eliberate or not, left-wingers in the arts and media risk playing the extremists’ game.” Adrian Packer was approached for comment and an initial interview was cancelled. A new date for an interview has not been scheduled at time of writing (January 10). 

Partnership with the school

Kermode objected to the pressure she was being put under by the Core Education Trust, so it was suggested that she and Helen Monks meet with the headteacher of Rockwood Academy, formerly Park View — one of the schools at the centre of the TH Affair. Both Monks and Kermode said it was clear that the objective of this meeting was to persuade MAC not to do the play.  Many of the reasons given were to do with the safety of the children currently in the school. “People still talk about the TH Affair; it’s still there and bubbling away,” said Monks. “We took that as a sign that the play should be put on so these issues can be confronted and the school could be seen to be listening. We suggested that we do the play in collaboration with the school and they could frame it as they would like to, an opportunity to acknowledge what had happened. But they were not keen to do that and put it down to not having enough time or resources.”

Accusations of lack of balance

Political adviser Nick Timothy in the article cited above claimed “Senior education figures have told me that, when their accounts did not suit the play’s narrative, their interviews with Monks and Woodhead were terminated early”. This claim was then repeated by critic Dominic Cavendish in his review of the play. When asked to respond to this, Monks and Woodhead said they did not terminate or cancel any interviews. “The only person we can think this claim could have come from was a headteacher from a school that was outside the group of schools we were focusing on who we met very late in the process of writing the play. We made it clear before meeting that we were giving voice to the teachers and governors accused in the plot. After making him aware of this, he chose to cancel the interview on the day. When we were next in Birmingham (for our very final interviews) we re-approached him and he did not respond.” 

Media interest withdrawn

BBC West Midlands Today responded positively to the play coming to Birmingham and planned a TV news feature. Interviews were arranged with cast and creative team, but cancelled at the last minute. They said a more urgent item had come up, even though the team were in Birmingham for several days. 

Lack of alternative perspectives in Q&A

The opportunity to have an open debate in Birmingham about the state of education in the city was not taken up. Invitations extended to Adrian Packer, Nick Timothy and other of the play’s detractors were not taken up. The council requested 10 free tickets to the performance at the MAC but did not show up. 

Community venue double booked

On the Monday before the Saturday performance, the team were told that the hall they had booked in Alum Rock four months previously had been double booked. An alternative venue — the community hall in the grounds of Rockwood Academy, formerly Parkview, one of the schools at the centre of the Trojan Horse Affair — was found at late notice. The change of venue was not announced in advance as it was only three minutes away from the previous venue, so the audience walked from one to the other on arrival. “Going back to Alum Rock for the performance was electrifying. The trauma was there, but having a guerrilla performance on the doorstep of the school was a surreal experience – the energy, the emotion and the unity in an intimate space. It was epic,” said Inam Malik – one of the teachers at the centre of the affair.

Police incident

Birmingham Parent Forum – a group linked to the LGBT protest — printed a leaflet advertising the performance at the community centre, independently of the play’s marketing strategy. Adrian Packer wrote to MAC’s Debbie Kermode, even though the community event was unrelated to the MAC performances, to say flyers had been distributed outside Rockwood Academy. Packer said he had alerted relevant local and national authorities and police were at the school. Four police officers came to the venue on Saturday evening at the start of the show, stayed a few minutes and left.

Audience response in Birmingham

The play attracted capacity crowds for four showings at the MAC, the largest South Asian audience ever recorded at the theatre, and the single performance in Alum Rock, also full to capacity, attracted a 90% South Asian audience. At the end of the show the teachers and governors came on stage and took a bow and invited people to stay for the Q&A.  “The show attracted four capacity audiences, and I think we could have filled it 10 times over, with the majority of the audience from South Asian heritage, who welcomed the opportunity to talk about it even if they didn’t all agree!”2[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]2. Debbie Kermode interviewed for this case study.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Reflections” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Inam Malik – former Head of Modern Foreign Languages at Park View and one of two teachers who were banned from teaching for life, a ban that was subsequently overturned in High Court.

“A lot has been written about the Trojan Horse Affair, but it has been very one-sided, sensationalist, extremely irresponsible reporting, jumping to conclusions, leading on the story of a jihadist plot. It became a political football.  But this play told the story in a balanced way. It captured everything – Tahir’s vision, the pupils’, teachers and the council’s perspectives. There has been so much care, commitment and courage to put this together. I can’t thank Helen and Matt enough, and Professor Holmwood – his passion for speaking the truth and educating people is incredible.

There was a huge appetite for this show in Birmingham. It sold out weeks in advance. I attended all the performances and spoke on all the after shows. It was very emotional and personal to me. My family and friends were there, my network. I felt naked in front of them, I choked up. But it was an opportunity for the people of Birmingham to know the impact on me and others involved and the wider society. It opens up old wounds, which won’t close until we get justice, but talking about it heals as well. People were very sympathetic and quite shocked. They were saying they must have been asleep, ‘we can’t allow something like this to happen again’. We had members of the LGBT community on the panel and in spite of what we see in media, faith based and LGBT communities can work together to support children’s education; the Muslim community shouldn’t be used as a tool [of division?]

Going back to Alum Rock for the performance was electrifying. The trauma was there, but having a guerrilla performance on the doorstep of the school was a surreal experience – the energy, the emotion and the unity in an intimate space. It was epic.

The play had a massive impact on the audience and on social media. Four days were not enough. So many people contacted me afterwards, upset they couldn’t get tickets.

Right now the Muslim community feels insecure, about Brexit, about our political leadership. We’ve been screwed over, so we have mixed feelings. Policies have changed as a result of Trojan Horse.  The impact is felt on a daily basis. Some parents are afraid that if they become governors and speak about their rights, they would be accused of being a repeat of Trojan Horse.  This play, written by non-Muslims, gives hope that there are still people out there who support justice. We need to get out and work for a better society together. You can’t allow the system to shut you down, you have to fight, you have to speak up.”

Qasim Mahmood – actor playing Tahir Alam – former head of Park View Trust

“I grew up in Alum Rock till I was 20 years old. My house is behind Nansen Primary school – across the road is Parkview. My dad and uncles went to Parkview and my cousins went to Parkview while this was happening; Tahir was a governor of my school.  So I was so part of that environment that the play is talking about.

When I was younger, I knew the Trojan Horse was happening but I didn’t know the other side, the side that the media wasn’t telling. The only person in my life who used to say it was bullshit was my dad. Everyone believed something bad had happened. It was so hurtful to discover the truth [through the play]. Since watching it, my Dad calls me up all the time to tell me how upset he feels. He was of the generation that only got one GSCE out of that school, he left when he was 15. He feels robbed of an education he could have had.

Bringing the play to Birmingham, I knew people would get it, would hear and understand. I wasn’t scared, but there was this added responsibility of serving this community. There were people in the audience who were affected by it. One of the teachers and his family were on the front row.

In the performance in Alum Rock, I had never been so close to what it was like to be in that  situation, because the school was right behind me. It was the most truthful performance I had done.  Near the end Tahir says something like Michael Gove came and destroyed this community and then walked away. Those lines felt so right and I got the weight of those words and my responsibility. Normally people laugh through the play. In Alum Rock, they didn’t laugh at all; normally they like Elaine Buckley – silence. You could feel how much they disliked her, what she was saying about the community, right there and then. People were nodding along, hearing this side of the story. But they were hurt in the room.

The LGBT issue is about being heard, and they don’t feel heard at the moment. There was one guy who came to the play who said ‘I didn’t speak out then but I am speaking out now’. I wondered if has an issue about LGBT or is it more because he feels he is not being heard. The people I know who came to see the play have more of an understanding it is part of their history now. Now it feels like this is part of our story.”

Artistic Director/CEO Midland Arts Centre Debbie Kermode

“MAC is located within a large South Asian, with significant, relatively conservative Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities.  We have a long-term objective to engage critically with the issues that are relevant to these communities. It is not enough just to have people from BAME communities attending the venue.  Trojan Horse was therefore an important and meaningful play for us to support as it allowed an alternative perspective and voice to the community, and we took it on proudly and paid considerable attention to work we did around it. We invested our own funds to support the translation of the play into Urdu and the supported outreach work. We worked with residents in Alum Rock, families and ex-pupils who supported the play and the issues raised, which they felt passionate about sharing. We approached the Core Education Trust which in 2015 took over the running of the schools caught up in the Trojan Horse Affair, with a strong desire to build a partnership, however unfortunately for many reasons the school leadership resisted any engagement with us, and voiced serious concerns about MAC taking the play.

Adrian Packer, CEO and Co-Founder of Core Education Trust, was a vocal critic of the play coming to Birmingham at this time, given the current controversy over teaching of LGBT lessons and other concerns, because the Trojan Horse happened in schools he has jurisdiction over, he was keen to influence MAC’s decision to take the play. I absolutely understood his feeling that it was the school’s story, taking place in their classrooms and that he has a duty of care to his pupils, however it was difficult to reconcile his belief that he represented the views of the wider community. As one mother of a pupil I spoke to after the show at MAC candidly said, “They changed everything. They came in, got their MBEs and OBES and felt they “rescued” the situation.” It was clear that many community members took a different view and wanted a safe space to discuss the issues raised.

Adrian Packer talked about opening old wounds that would upset the community, however together with the play’s writer and director, the team at MAC felt that it opened up an important debate that has been suspended since the collapse of the trial. Sadly we were never going to see eye to eye. From where I stand, perceptions of what happened in 2014 are complex and there is a wide range of opinion about the Affair.  The show attracted 4 capacity audiences, and I think we could have filled it 10 times over,  with the majority of the audience from South Asian heritage, who welcomed the opportunity to talk about it even if they didn’t all agree!”

Member of Core Education Trust

“We invited Adrian Packer to respond in November, but he was unfortunately not available to comment until mid-January, after the publication of this case study. We asked for comment from other members of the Trust, but have not had any response.”

Professor John Holmwood

“Dialogue secures democracy; constraining dialogue breeds suspicion.  Everything is resolved through talking about it. But when it comes to Trojan Horse many people think that if you talk about it people will tell you things that you wont want to hear. So let’s stop people talking about it.  

This is about justice, about not being heard, not being listened to, and the power of the state to create the narrative and let the consequences be dealt with by other people. They are not going to take responsibility.  But at the core of this is a discussion about education. And the play is really saying – if you accept that this is a false narrative then what this play is about is how should we be managing teaching ethnic minority children in multi-cultural society.  For the parents, it is also a question of justice – how do we get the same educational chances for our children as for others. If it had been white middle class children who were failing their parents wouldn’t have put up with it and they would have been supported in their desire for change. When Muslims try and take it into their hands they are accused of being extremists.

Wherever the play is performed wherever the story is told, it is accepted and what people respond to is that there is an obvious injustice there – there is never a rebuttal of the story there is only an attempt to have the story not heard.  My optimism is that anyone who comes to it fresh sees how the story was previously constructed was false, that is how many people have responded to the play.  That for me is the Hillsborough comparison.  It is why the play went down so well in Liverpool.  Probably the best set of performances they were right into the play right from the start.  There is no need to explain to us what happened they understood, because they had been regarded that they were not worth listening to. The awareness that the play generated was exactly what the play’s detractors were afraid of, but what drives the play – to build grassroots  support to demand an inquiry.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Summary” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The performances of Trojan Horse in Birmingham demonstrate that it is possible to bring even the most highly controversial, politically sensitive subject matter successfully onto the stage. 

The stakes could not have been higher. As Tahir Alam said, the political and educational impact of Trojan Horse “will last for decades”. 

Many people felt that this made it too risky to bring the play to Birmingham. Nevertheless, the play was successfully and safely performed on home territory to capacity audiences. The reasons behind the successful production of challenging material are always complex, however it is possible to identify some clear strands of best practice that helped to contribute to this success:

  • the care taken with the script
  • effective community engagement work
  • the making available of simultaneous translations of the performances;
  • the curation of after-show discussions; 
  • support from established cultural organisations
  • political and academic champions

Turnout surpassed expectations and more performances had to be added in at the MAC. The best testimony to the fact that so-called hard to reach audiences will come out when what is on offer is relevant and important enough, is that another theatre in Birmingham has expressed interest in bringing the play back for a longer run, later in the year to meet the demand for tickets. A return trip to Birmingham also offers another opportunity to engage with alternative voices in the post show Q&A.

The play is a very strong example of free speech in action through theatre: it provides a platform to challenge a mainstream narrative, and through the Q&A, extends an invitation to people with very little access to public debate, to discuss the issues raised. This, and the ultimate goal of calling power to account, illustrate the important role theatre can have within civil society. 

However, there is another free speech angle on this production that is worth considering and that is about authorship and who is free to tell which stories.

From our work on Homegrown, Believers are but Brothers and in our research on the impact of Prevent on artistic freedom of expression more generally, we have heard repeatedly how difficult it is for Muslim artists to critique the state/establishment. The fact that the creative team for Trojan Horse was non-Muslim begs the question, would it have been possible for a Muslim artist to make this play? The play’s translator, Ayesha Manazir Siddiqui, voiced her concern about the white lens in her reflections on translating the play and wondered “what this play would have looked like if it had been made by a Pakistani Muslim from Birmingham”. She also asks the all-important question for the arts sector: “When will room be made in the industry for that play?” [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Response from CORE Education Trust” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]CORE Education Trust is grateful to have this opportunity to make the following factual accuracy corrections to this article:

The article states “Core Education Trust which in 2015 took over the running of some of the schools implicated in the Trojan Horse Affairs.” This is incorrect. CORE Education Trust (company number 07949154) ran the schools referred to in the article before, during and after the Trojan Horse affair from 2012.

The article states that Core’s CEO “contacted the MAC to express concerns about the play coming to Birmingham.” In an email to the article’s author on 25th November 2019, the CEO stated “I don’t actually have concerns about the play.”

The article states “Members of the trust’s board of directors contacted MAC trustees and a trust board member accused Kermode of having an extremist agenda.” This is incorrect. Ms Kermode has confirmed that only one Board Member, Ammo Talwar contacted her and that he did not contact her on behalf of Core Education Trust. He made contact in a personal capacity.

The article states “Adrian Packer was approached for comment and an initial interview was cancelled. A new date for an interview has not been scheduled at time of writing (January 10).” A scheduled interview was cancelled because Adrian Packer was on jury service at that time. Before and after that time he was in regular, positive contact with the author of the article.

The article states “Kermode objected to the pressure she was being put under by the Core Education Trust.” Ms Kermode has confirmed that she felt pressure from Ammo Talwar, not from Core Education Trust.

The article states “Both Monks and Kermode said it was clear that the objective of this meeting (with the Rockwood Headteacher) was to persuade MAC not to do the play.
The Rockwood Headteacher, Sofia Darr, refutes that version of events. She was interviewed by the author of the article but in an email on 18th August 2020, the author said that her editor had “closed the piece to additional voices.”

The article states that an alternative venue “the community hall in the grounds of Rockwood Academy, formerly Parkview, one of the schools at the centre of the Trojan Horse Affair — was found at late notice.” The is incorrect. The Naseby Centre is not in the grounds of Rockwood. It is a neighbouring building run separately and independently by Birmingham City Council.

The article states that there was “a guerrilla performance (of the play).” This is incorrect. If performed at the Naseby Centre as stated, the producers will have been given full permission and blessing from the local authority to perform it there.

CORE Education Trust
18 September 2020[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Free speech & the law: Public Order

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579268532812{margin-bottom: 30px !important;background-color: #f5f5f5 !important;}”]Please note: This is part of a series of guides produced by Index on Censorship on the laws related to freedom of expression in England and Wales. They are intended to help understand the protections that exist for free speech and where the law currently permits restrictions.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]This guide is available to download as a PDF here.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”111968″ img_size=”large” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_custom_heading text=”1. Introduction” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct1″][vc_column_text]One of the primary functions of the police in England and Wales is to maintain peace and order.

Under the Human Rights Act 1998, police officers must respect people’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, Article 10 of the convention states that restrictions on people’s free expression rights may be justified on the grounds of preventing disorder or crime, protecting public safety and protecting the rights of others (see text box).

Many of the public order crimes discussed in this guide are contained in the Public Order Act 1986, which sets out the offences of riot, affray, violent disorder, and the different types of criminal harassment, alarm or distress. However, there are also more specific offences, such as “indecent or racist chanting” at a football match under the Football (Offences) Act 1991. The police also retain a common law power to arrest an individual for “breach of the peace”. The Public Order Act also includes special provision on offences intended to stir up religious and racial hatred and hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Please see our separate guidelines: “UK laws relating to ‘hate speech’” for more information.

In addition to speech-related actions that may constitute public order, individuals may break the law for things they say or share online, in phone calls or in written form, such as letters. These are offences are largely covered by the Communications Act and Malicious Communications Act.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po2″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”2. Breach of the peace” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]A breach of the peace is an act (or the threat of an act) that harms a person as a result of violence, or is likely to cause such harm, or makes a person fear such harm. The belief that actual harm is likely to occur must be reasonable.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Actual harm” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The courts have defined “actual harm” to mean harm to a “person’s body or property” (R v Howell (Errol) 1982). There should be a “wrongful” or unlawful act, such as an assault or riot, leading someone to be harmed, or to fear harm, before the police can make an arrest for breach of the peace.

Police officers (and ordinary citizens) can arrest people committing a breach of the peace in their presence, or those they reasonably think will commit a breach of the peace in the immediate future, or who have committed a breach of the peace and are likely to do it again. To comply with human rights law, the purpose of arrest must be to bring the perpetrator before a “competent legal authority”. No warrant is required, and a breach of the peace can take place on private or public property. When the police believe a breach of the peace is likely to happen in the immediate future, they can use their powers only when the breach is imminent. Judicial Review proceedings may be brought against the police if their actions contravene these requirements.

Breach of the peace is governed by common law. Common law, also referred to as case law, is made by judges and developed in the cases that come before the courts over time. (This is in contrast to statutory law, which is written law passed by Parliament.) It means that there are no specific, relevant extracts of written legislation for common law.

Case law tells us that the police must exercise their breach of the peace power of arrest in a way that respects people’s rights to free expression and assembly (as well as their other human rights). Arresting preachers for refusing to stop preaching because they might cause a breach of the peace, for example, was found to breach the preachers’ rights in the case of Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions 1999. The court said the police should have used their power of arrest against the large crowd that had gathered and were showing hostility towards the women preachers, and not against the women themselves. However, the court said that if the preachers were being so provocative that someone in the crowd might – not wholly unreasonably – be moved to violence, the police would be entitled to ask the preachers to stop, and arrest them if they refused to.

Although there is a power of arrest for breach of the peace, there is no criminal offence of breach of the peace. Therefore, while someone can be arrested for breach of the peace, they cannot be prosecuted. However, they might be prosecuted for assault, violent disorder, or any other crime that led to the breach of the peace.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row gap=”35″][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”111978″ img_size=”large” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_custom_heading text=”3. Public Order Act 1986″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Public Order Act covers several offences, including:

  • Riot (Section 1)
  • Violent disorder (Section 2)
  • Affray (Section 3)
  • Fear or provocation of violence (Section 4)
  • Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress (Section 4a)
  • Harassment, alarm or distress (Section 5) 

While the riot, violent disorder and affray sections are more focused on preventing physical displays of violent or threatening behaviour, Sections 4, 4a and 5 criminalise the use of threatening, abusive or offensive words (or behaviour) in a way that is likely to cause distress, harassment or alarm.[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Public Order Act offences” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]

Riot

A riot involves 12 or more people using or threatening violence for a common purpose, with their conduct (taken together) resulting in reasonable people present at the scene fearing for their safety.

Violent disorder

Violent disorder involves three or more people using or threatening violence, with their conduct resulting in reasonable people present at the scene fearing for their safety.

Affray

Affray involves one person using or threatening violence, with his or her conduct resulting in reasonable people present at the scene fearing for their safety. Under affray, “a threat of violence cannot be made by the use of words alone”.

Fear or provocation of violence (section 4)

Fear or provocation of violence involves one person using towards another person “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” or “distributing or displaying to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” with the intention of making a person believe immediate violence will be used, or to provoke such violence, or where it is likely violence would be provoked. There is no crime if both parties are inside a private residence. (Neither a domestic garden nor a communal landing in a block of flats are classed as residences.)

Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress (section 4a)

Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress involves one person using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displaying writing, a sign or another visual that is threatening, abusive or insulting, with the intent and result of causing harassment, alarm or distress.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579537002672{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

Case study: Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress

In July 2019, a 38-year-old woman was arrested under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 for shouting homophobic abuse at people taking part in a Pride march. Footage posted on social media showed the woman shouting “Shame on you” to participants, one of whom was wearing a rainbow flag. She also shouted: “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you. Shame on you, you despicable people.” Jamila Choudhury was given a three-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay a £122 victim surcharge and £100 compensation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Harassment, alarm or distress (section 5)

Harassment, alarm or distress involves one person using threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displaying material which is threatening or abusive, within the hearing or sight of someone likely to suffer harassment, alarm or distress as a result.

There is no requirement to prove that anyone was actually harassed, alarmed or distressed. It is enough if the abusive words can be heard or seen by someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Uniquely among the Public Order Act offences, there is no need to prove intention here.

Section 5 is therefore broader than the other offences, particularly Section 4a, as it can apply where the person is aware of the potential for their conduct to be threatening or abusive, even without intending this result. [/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”16px”][vc_column_text]The Public Order Act itself also has additional rules applying to conduct intending to stir up racial or religious hatred, or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation (see separate guide on this).

Parts III and IIIA of the act create offences against writings, plays, recordings or broadcasts where these are intended to stir up racial hatred (in Part III) or religious hatred or hatred on grounds of sexual orientation (Part IIIA).

However, Part IIIA specifically contains protections for free speech where religion is involved. This protection significantly narrows the scope of Part IIIA.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579536813352{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

The PEN amendment

Section 29J of Part IIIA (the so-called ‘PEN amendment’) states that the rules on public order must not be applied “in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Harassment, alarm or distress

“Harassment”, “alarm” and “distress” have not been defined within the legislation. However, courts have ruled that “distress” requires emotional disturbance and upset. “Harassment” does not require emotional disturbance, but it must not be trivial. It does not need any element of apprehension about personal safety.

Insults

Section 5 no longer contains a prohibition on “insulting words or behaviour”. This reference was removed in 2013 following a high-profile campaign spearheaded by religious and secular campaign groups as well as comedian Rowan Atkinson, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and MP David Davis.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”4. Theatres Act 1968″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Theatres Act 1968 provides a specific offence, under Section 6, of using threatening, abusive or insulting words if the intention is to provoke a breach of the peace, or the performance as a whole is likely to result in a breach of the peace.

The offence criminalises only the actions of the director or the “presenter” of the play, although these roles are not defined within the legislation. Performers are immune unless they are not performing in accordance with directions they have been given.

The act states that a decision to prosecute under Section 6 may be taken only with the consent of the attorney-general (the government’s chief legal adviser). The requirement for the attorney-general’s permission means that a decision to prosecute is likely to be considered particularly carefully, given that the attorney-general has a higher profile than other prosecutors, and such a decision would be subject to greater public scrutiny. This scrutiny may include whether or not the director’s right to freedom of expression and the public’s right to receive information have been sufficiently considered.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Gang injunctions” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct41″][vc_column_text]The Policing and Crime Act 2009 introduced the so-called “injunctions to prevent gang-related violence” that mean a court can require an individual to do, or be prevented from doing, “anything” described in the injunction. The police and local government can apply to a court for an injunction. In the explanatory notes to the legislation, the government said the purpose of the gang injunctions was to prevent serious acts of violence from occurring, break down gang culture and prevent younger gang members’ behaviour from escalating, and give local authorities an opportunity to engage with gang members and help them develop effective strategies to exit gangs.

For the purposes of gang injunctions, something is “gang-related” if it relates to the activities of a group of three or more people who share one or more characteristics that enable them to be identified as a group.

To grant an injunction, a court must first be satisfied that the proposed subject of the injunction has engaged in – or encouraged or assisted – gang-related violence. The court must also think it necessary to grant the injunction in order to prevent that person from engaging in gang-related violence or to protect them from such violence. The court can require the individual to do, or be prevented from doing, “anything” described in the injunction. Although this gives a court very broad discretion, any requirements must be compliant with human rights law, which means it must not unlawfully restrict free expression or free assembly rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

Gang injunctions have been used in recent years to prohibit people from making music. In 2011, “Matt” (whose real name was not revealed so as to maintain his safety), a teenage rapper from south London, was served with a gang injunction that banned him from making any songs or videos that might encourage violence. He faced up to two years in prison if he breached the conditions. Southwark Council – the local authority that applied for the injunction – asked for it partly because videos featuring the rapper contained threats targeting other gangs in the area. While Matt admitted some of his lyrics were violent, he said his lyrics should not be seen as a real threat but as a description of life growing up on an estate in London.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579536569934{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

Case study: Gang injunctions against Drill musicians

In January 2019, drill artists Skengdo and AM were given nine-month suspended prison sentences for breaching a gang injunction issued against them in August 2018. The injunction banned them from going to certain areas and associating with certain individuals, and restricted their ability to make music and perform. The police claimed the injunction was breached when Skengdo and AM “performed drill music that incited and encouraged violence against rival gang members and then posted it on social media”. The police used footage of them performing Attempted – a response to music from other south London artists – in a club to make their case.

In February 2019, 65 signatories from human rights organisations as well as academics, musicians and lawyers wrote an open letter, urging the Metropolitan Police to stop using gang injunctions against musicians as a means of preventing violence.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In the case of Jones v Birmingham City Council 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that gang injunctions did not breach people’s fair-trial rights under the ECHR. Jerome Jones, who had an injunction imposed on him, argued that it was unlawful for the legislation to require proof of involvement in gang-related violence based on the lower civil-law standard of proof (i.e. the balance of probabilities). He argued that because of the punitive and serious nature of gang injunctions, the higher criminal standard of being “beyond a reasonable doubt” should be satisfied before a gang injunction could be imposed. The court disagreed.

Jones’s injunction included a prohibition on appearing in any music videos.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Powers of the police and prosecutors” use_theme_fonts=”yes” el_id=”ct42″][vc_column_text]

The police have statutory and common law powers to deal with disorder and to prevent anticipated disorder. They can do so by making arrests for various offences, and, importantly, by making arrests or giving directions to people to prevent breaches of the peace.

In exercising these powers, the police also have duties to give protection to the freedom of speech of all groups and individuals, and any other relevant freedoms, including the right to protest and to manifest a religion. The role of the police naturally shifts with changes in culture and the law. The current position is that the police have an obligation to ensure law and order and, as a public authority, an additional obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998 to preserve, and in some cases to promote, fundamental rights such as the right to protest and the right to freedom of expression protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, currently incorporated into the UK’s domestic law.

The result is that the police conduct a pragmatic balancing act between the different parties. However, in certain contexts, the correct balance may not be being struck. For example, in the artistic world there have been numerous incidents where police have advised the closure or cancellation of controversial shows or exhibits in order to avoid public disorder. For example, Exhibit B – an installation showing a series of tableaux vivants recreating the 19th century “human zoo” fashion of presenting Africans as exhibits to European audiences – was closed following the police’s advice that if the show were not closed, it could trigger riots. The manager of the venue showing Exhibit B said that when police issued their “advice” to close the show, five officers stood over him while he wrote a letter agreeing to close it.

Other problems with policing controversial artwork remain. One issue is the police’s requests for fees to cover their services when policing controversial shows.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po5″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”5. Communications Act 2003″ font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 placed a legal duty on certain bodies to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. This duty is one aspect of the government’s Prevent strategy, within its wider counter-terrorism strategy, known as Contest. The aim of Prevent, according to the government, is to “reduce the threat to the UK from terrorism by stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”. The duty applies to bodies in the UK that have a role in protecting vulnerable people and/or national security, including schools, universities, prisons, National Health Service trusts and local authorities.

The Prevent guidance demands the bodies take a “risk-based approach”. They must first understand the “risk of radicalisation” within their institutions, and form appropriate policies and procedures to deal with that risk, ensuring frontline and managerial staff are equipped to deal with the risk of radicalisation. This means developing training for staff members on the Prevent duty.

The guidance states that the Prevent programme must not include any “covert activity against people or communities”. But it also states that information-sharing of personal data may be allowed in order, for example, to refer a person at risk of being drawn into terrorism to the appropriate support.

Many institutions will need to work with Home Office Prevent co-ordinator teams who will monitor the institutions’ activities.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Prosecutions under section 127″ use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1579536539583{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;padding-top: 5px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #397cbf !important;}”]

Case study: The Twitter joke trial

In 2010, Paul Chambers, who was planning to fly to Northern Ireland to meet his then girlfriend posted a message on Twitter, saying “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”

Chambers was subsequently arrested and charged with “sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003.” He was found guilty fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. 

The conviction was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice and was appealed three times, the conviction being quashed as a result of the third appeal.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Other examples

Azhar Ahmed (2012): Convicted for posting on Facebook that British soldiers “should die and go to hell” on Facebook March 2012. Ahmed was sentenced to 240 hours of community service and £300 fee.

Robert Riley (2014): Sent to prison for eight weeks for saying he would have killed murdered teacher Ann Maguire and all her colleagues. Chairwoman of the bench, Georgina Scannell, said the court had no choice but to send the defendant to jail. “The offensive messages outraged the public,” she said. “You had complete disregard for the tragic death of Ann Maguire. Besides this, countless other vile messages were made by you. The bench finds these were racially and religiously aggravated. The offences are so serious that only a period of immediate custody can be justified.” 

Count Dankula (2018): Scottish police arrested Mark Meecham (known on YouTube Count Dankula) in May 2016 for posting a video online of him teaching his girlfriend’s dog to make a Nazi salute. He was found guilty in March 2018 and fined £800. The judged sided with the prosecution who said “context and intent are irrelevant” even though Count Dankula made clear the video was a joke.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″ el_id=”po6″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”6. Malicious Communications Act” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Malicious Communications Act 1988 states that any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communications or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive, a threat or information that is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature is guilty of an offence if their purpose in sending it is to “cause distress or anxiety to the recipient”.

Prosecutions under Malicious Communications

Roman Catholic Veronica Connolly, who objected to the morning-after pill, sent images of aborted foetuses to pharmacies. Connolly was prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which she held prosecution violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. Her appeal against prosecution was dismissed after it was deemed that Connolly’s right to express her views did not justify the distress and anxiety she intended to cause those who received the photographs and they had the right not to receive such material. It was significant in that it was argued those who received the material were in no position to influence public debate.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator el_width=”80″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Ackowledgements” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]This guide was produced by Index on Censorship, in partnership with Clifford Chance.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Spain and censorship, a history, and a reading list

The Spanish Supreme Court has jailed nine Catalan separatist leaders for their roles in the independence referendum in 2017, deemed illegal by the Spanish government. Oriol Junqueras, former vice president of Catalonia, was sentenced to 13 years, the highest sentence handed out. A new international arrest warrant for former Catalonia President Carles Puigdemont, who fled to Belgium, has been issued. As protesters clash with police on the streets of Barcelona over the sentencing, Index looks back on the struggle for freedom of expression in Spain and particularly Catalonia, from the last years of General Francisco Franco’s regime, to the present.        

 

Poems from Catalonia vol 1, 2 1972

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064227208532183  

Joan Brossa, born in 1919, wrote poetry about Franco’s invasion and destruction of independent Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). His works are allegories about the bitterness over the cultural repression in Catalonia under Franco. However, the allegories were too transparent to avoid censorship by the Spanish authorities. Index acquired copies of some of the censored poems.

Franco protest Spain

Weekly meeting to remember Franco’s victims in the Puerta del Sol, Madrid [Image credit: NathaliePaco – Demotix]

Skin-deep liberalism vol 3,2 1974

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064227408532323 

The final years of Franco’s regime saw a confused attitude towards censorship. Franco wanted to outwardly present a degree of liberalism to the international political community, while still enforcing censorship inwardly. John Butt argued that this may be why right-wing extremists suppressed artists and thinkers and got away with it; the government allowed these groups to do their dirty work. Vigilantes poured acid over some of Picasso’s works and threw bricks through bookshop windows. The police did not charge them. It was a period of haphazardly applied censorship, creating an atmosphere of insecurity for Spanish writers.    

 

Spanish journalists in jeopardy vol 9,6 1980

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228008533131 

Even in post-Franco Spain, there were significant threats to freedom of expression for journalists. The 1978 constitutional guarantee of press freedom proved to be a formality, not upheld in practice. In May 1980, 60 journalists, writers and artists faced court action, with offenses including “outrage to public morals”. Juan Luis Cebrian, the author of this article, was the editor of the Madrid daily newspaper El Pais. He was sentenced to three months in prison for an editorial, published two years prior in 1978, in which he defended freedom of expression. Read about his experiences here.      

 

Shifting an elephant – freedom of expression in spain today vol 11, 3 1982

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228208533377 

In the first two years after Franco’s death there was excitement about the new democracy, as many newspapers and magazines were set up. But in a bid to pacify Francoists, laws remained in place that allowed journalists to be targeted. Offenses included insult or disrespect to the army and the royal family. In 1977 anti-terrorist legislation was brought in, which failed to define “apology” for terrorism. This left it open to abuse by those wishing to penalise journalists. Read Malcolm Coad’s article from this pivotal point in Spanish history here.      

 

Puppet state vol 46,1 2017

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422017703623 

Spanish puppeteers Raúl García Pérez and Alfonso Lázaro de la Fuente were arrested in 2016 for glorifying terrorism. The evidence against them was the content of puppet show Pérez and Lázaro de la Fuente were performing as part of carnival festivities in Madrid. The show had included a character holding a banner displaying the name of a fictional terrorist organisation. Lázaro de la Fuente told Index about his experiences following his arrest, and discussed the consequences of performers being persecuted for their art in modern Spain.       

 

No laughing matter vol 46, 2 2017

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422017716058 

Silvia Nortes explored the reforms the Spanish political party, the Partido Popular, pushed through which allowed the prosecution of comedians, journalists and social media users, quashing their right to freedom of expression. Nortes cites several examples of comedians who have been prosecuted and even jailed. Read their jokes here.       

  

They can’t stop the music vol 46,4 2017

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422017748822 

Cesk Freixas, a musician and member of Popular Unity Candidacy, a pro-Catalonia independence party, has drawn the attention of the ruling Partido Popular. Unhappy with his strong pro-independence message, they attempted to have his shows cancelled.     

Freixas, who performs in Catalan, told Index he has been accused, among other things of “boasting the Catalan language”. Singer-songwriter Albert Pla has also faced discrimination for championing independence for Catalans. Read more about censorship of the independence movement here.     

 

One year after murder of Khashoggi, NGOs renew call for justice

Saudi journalist, Global Opinions columnist for the Washington Post, and former editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel Jamal Khashoggi offers remarks during POMED’s “Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia: A Deeper Look”. March 21, 2018, Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), Washington, DC.

Saudi journalist, Global Opinions columnist for the Washington Post, and former editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel Jamal Khashoggi offers remarks during POMED’s “Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia: A Deeper Look”. March 21, 2018, Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), Washington, DC.

Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October, 2018, to obtain official documents in order to get married, but he did not make it out alive. He was brutally killed inside the consulate in what the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Agnes Callamard, called a “premeditated extrajudicial killing” for which the state of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible.

Khashoggi was a well-known Saudi journalist and intellectual who, due to safety concerns and the inability to continue his work inside Saudi Arabia, decided to live in self-imposed exile in the United States. He was a firm promoter of freedom of speech and press freedom in the Arab world.

While he was no outright opponent of the Saudi royal family and did not call for regime change in the country, he criticised the arrest of human rights defenders and the reform plans of the crown prince. This alone may have been enough to seal his fate.

After more than two weeks of deception and denial about his death, on 19 October 2018 the Saudi authorities admitted that Khashoggi had been killed inside the consulate by a group of men connected to the authorities, but continued to deny any direct knowledge or responsibility for the crime. One year after his murder, the remains of Khashoggi’s body are still missing and have not been returned to his family.

The Saudi authorities implicated 11 individuals responsible for Khashoggi’s killing, some of whom face the death penalty. They are currently being tried in the Specialised Criminal Court, a jurisdiction notorious for violations of fair trial guarantees. The trial proceedings remain in large part secret, and criminal responsibility in the chain of command has not yet been established.

Khashoggi’s death sparked outrage and was widely condemned. In the days and weeks following his killing, the international community began to ask questions and to demand clarity. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued several press releases, while the UN Special Procedures on enforced disappearance, summary executions and freedom of expression issued a joint Urgent Appeal. Moreover, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, stressed the need for a prompt, thorough and transparent investigation into the circumstances of Khashoggi’s death and full accountability for those responsible.

On 24 October 2018, the EU Parliament issued a resolution urging the Saudi authorities to disclose the whereabouts of Khashoggi’s remains. In addition to demanding an independent and impartial international investigation into the journalist’s death, the resolution also classified it as being part of a pattern of a widespread crackdown against prominent human rights defenders, women activists, lawyers, journalists, writers and bloggers, which has intensified since Mohammad bin Salman began consolidating control over the country’s security institutions.

It stated that the systematic practice of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings could amount to a crime against humanity. Lastly, it requested that the perpetrators of Khashoggi’s murder be identified and brought to justice, following a fair trial held in accordance with international standards before an impartial court and with international observers present.

On 5 November 2018, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record was examined by UN Member States as part of the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review. The killing of Khashoggi was raised extensively during the review and featured heavily among the 258 recommendations the Saudi authorities received to improve the human rights situation in the country. At least 27 states raised concerns about Khashoggi’s extrajudicial killing, with many reiterating the need for a transparent, impartial, independent and effective investigation.

In January 2019, Callamard decided on her own initiative and under the terms of her mandate as UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions to open a special human rights investigation into Khashoggi’s killing.

On 7 March 2019, in a landmark initiative, a group of 36 UN Member States led by Iceland delivered a joint statement during the 40th session of the Human Rights Council expressing serious concern over the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia and condemning in the strongest possible terms the killing of Khashoggi. The statement reiterated the call for a prompt, independent, impartial and transparent investigation into his murder and stressed the need to protect journalists and to uphold the right to freedom of expression.

During the 41st session of the HRC, on 19 June 2019, Callamard presented her report, which concluded that the murder of Khashoggi was “overseen, planned and endorsed by high-level state officials of Saudi Arabia”. The Special Rapporteur found that both the investigations conducted by Saudi Arabia and Turkey failed to meet international standards and that the ongoing trial in Saudi Arabia of 11 suspects, while seemingly an important step towards accountability, also fails to meet international fair trial standards.

Callamard believes that the killing of Khashoggi constitutes an international crime over which states should claim universal jurisdiction. Asserting that her human rights inquiry is not a substitute for a criminal investigation or a court of law, the UN Special Rapporteur called on the Human Rights Council, the Security Council or the UN Secretary-General to demand a follow-up criminal investigation.

Most recently, on 23 September 2019, during the 42nd session of the HRC, Australia delivered a joint statement on behalf of 23 UN member states raising concerns over the persecution and intimidation of activists, the practice of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention, and reports of torture and unfair trials as well as extrajudicial executions.

Furthermore, the statement called for an end to impunity over the murder of Khashoggi and highlighted the need for the truth to be established and accountability achieved. We deeply regret that a number of states that had joined the March 2019 statement have now decided to no longer support this immediate call for action. We would like to highlight that states still have the possibility to become co-signatories until 11 October 2019.

Additionally, during the course of the past year and as a response to Khashoggi’s murder as well as the war in Yemen, some governments have suspended weapon sales to Saudi Arabia.

While we welcome the appeals, pledges and measures taken by some states over the past year and consider them as steps in the right direction towards accountability for the murder of Khashoggi, more tangible actions must follow. There is an undeniable risk that with big events scheduled to take place in Saudi Arabia in 2020, such as the G20 summit and the famous Dakar Rally, state-to-state relations could normalise. We cannot stand by and allow the return of business as usual as this would mean that Khashoggi died in vain and that there is little hope for hundreds of other unlawfully disappeared, detained, tortured or executed activists whose cases failed to attract similar levels of international attention.

As Callamard rightly said during a side event at the 42nd session of the HRC: “While one year must feel like a lifetime to Khashoggi’s family and friends, in human justice time and the search for truth it is very brief. Thus we should not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve; we should not lose hope and courage that justice can be attained.”

In that spirit, the undersigned organisations renew their call for action, demanding the following:

We call on the international community, and in particular the UN, to:

  1. Take action to ensure that a further impartial, prompt, thorough, independent and effective criminal investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is opened;
  2. Ensure that all perpetrators of the crime, including those at the head of the chain of command, are identified and prosecuted in a fair and transparent trial without recourse to the death penalty;
  3. Establish an immediate moratorium on all arms sales and exports of surveillance technology to Saudi Arabia;
  4. Co-sign the joint statement led by Australia on behalf of 23 UN Member States by 11 October;
  5. Introduce and endorse a UN resolution establishing a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia; and
  6. Urge the authorities in Saudi Arabia to implement the recommendations below.

We call on the authorities in Saudi Arabia to:

  1. Return the remains of Khashoggi’s body to his family;
  2. Invite independent international experts to oversee investigations into his murder; cooperate in good faith with all UN mechanisms; and ensure that those responsible for his death are brought to justice;
  3. Immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders, writers, journalists and prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia whose detention is a result of their peaceful and legitimate work in the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights;
  4. Establish a moratorium on the death penalty, including as punishment for crimes related to the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, and peaceful assembly;
  5. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders and journalists in Saudi Arabia are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities and public reporting without fear of reprisals; and
  6. Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and bring all national laws limiting the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association into compliance with international human rights standards.

List of signatories:

ALQST

Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain

Amnesty International

Article 19

Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy

CIVICUS

English PEN

European Center for Democracy and Human Rights

European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights

Gulf Center for Human Rights

IFEX

Index on Censorship

International Service for Human Rights

MENA Rights Group

No Peace Without Justice

PEN America

Rights Realisation Centre

Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State

World Organisation Against Torture