[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”88714″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Time was when the political right and social conservatives were enthusiasts for censorship – for “no-platforming” drama, film and books deemed obscene, disrespectful of authority or unpatriotic. The left, and liberals, were the supporters of freedom – calling for the publication of DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover in 1960; supporting the editors of Oz Magazine in the 1970 prosecution for obscenity; and opposing the charge of gross indecency in the staging of Howard Brenton’s Romans in Britain in 1982.
In every one of these cases, the liberals won, mocking those who were active in the prosecution. The victories effectively ruled out any further action to stop publication or staging.
It is different now. Significant parts of the left now wish to rule out speech they deem offensive.
In the USA, especially on college campuses, the view that freedom of speech furthers understanding, broadens the mind and sharpens, modifies or even changes one’s own beliefs is now frequently opposed by another view, often militantly expressed.
This holds that institutions of all kinds have a responsibility to protect people from opinions they find odious because they will sustain psychological damage from exposure to them. It dictates that the person or group who would cause such harm should not be given any kind of platform – in person, on the web or in print.
In the UK, several universities have been drawn into the struggle around the allegations of “hurt” and efforts to deny hearings for speakers accused of spreading hurtful speech.
Those university authorities tend to be more robust than their US equivalents in insisting that, once invited, a speaker be heard – though not invariably.
Freedom of speech and publication is passing, on the left, from being necessary to being suspect. One strong voice is that of Nesrine Malik, a Guardian columnist, who believes that “freedom of speech is no longer a value”, writing that: “It has become a loophole exploited with impunity by trolls, racists and ethnic cleansing advocates… aided by the group I call useful liberals – the ‘defend to the death your right to say it’ folk.”
The notion that freedom of speech is a neutral principle uncontaminated by history or social bias is, she believes, a “delusion”. Liz Fekete, director of the Institute of Race Relations, takes the same approach. She believes that “it is the privileging of freedom of speech over freedom to life that has emboldened identitarian and neo-Nazi activists, who are experts at manipulating naive liberal arguments about freedom of speech”.
These themes, if less strongly put, now appear in official discourse. A government white paper – usually a prelude to legislation – on Online Harms, which aims to make the UK “the safest place in the world to go online”, defines harms as “behaviour online which may hurt a person physically or emotionally”.
Thus free speech shifts from being something essential to a democratic society (even when offensive) to an issue dependent on a vague definition of emotional harm – which, by its nature, must attract myriad charges from those who claim criticism has damaged them emotionally, and thus must be censored.
Index on Censorship’s robust recognition, in an August 2018 statement, that “we, as users, will have to tolerate the fraudulent, the offensive and the idiotic” if speech is to be free now faces an existential challenge.
In a BBC Breakfast discussion in August last year, the former chief crown prosecutor, Nazir Afzal, suggested that prosecuting someone for hate speech could stop his or her later development into a major criminal. Jodie Ginsberg, Index’s chief executive, countered that, saying: “The idea that we can prevent future crimes by policing expression is a dangerous road to go down.”
Yet it is an indication of how official thinking now develops.
Earlier this month, an essay – Designating Hate – was published by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. It was an unusually clear argument for censorship – in this case of organisations “which demonise specific groups on the basis of their race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality”.
The proposal would task the Home Office with the duty of drawing up a list of those organisations which habitually use speech designed to prompt hatred, and to limit them “from appearing on media outlets or engaging with public institutions”.
They would be given a chance to reform: reviews would determine whether or not the organisation had changed its behaviour and, if so, it could be admitted to the media or engage with public institutions once more.
The good intentions of such legislation and proposed legislation are obvious. The framers of these policies wish to dam the flood of hate and threat which now pulses through social media, and to protect vulnerable people from their effects. But it’s questionable if they do protect – suppression of speech tends merely to re-route it, making it more alluring to those it attracts. And what is less in question is that they will in future promote a new kind of censorship, as algorithms pick up on key words to shut down blogs and messages which quote hate speech in order to oppose it; or which remove the output of far right or far left groups which, though repellent to liberals, have a right to be published.
The deletion of speech judged harmful opens up an endless trajectory, in which one excision begets another. “The fraudulent, the offensive and the idiotic” have always been with us, and though social media and the web amplify their reach, we still must tolerate them if we wish to preserve a robust civil society.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1568819478334-b34b0086-8688-0″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project tracks press freedom violations in five countries: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Learn more.
TV crew assaulted while reporting on illegal logging in Kharkiv region
28 August 2018 — Unknown individuals attacked a 112-Ukraine TV crew, which was reporting on illegal logging and theft of wood in the village Zolochiv, in the Kharkiv region, 112-Ukraine TV channel reported.
A group of men blocked the journalists’ car and struck its wheels, threatening the journalists with physical violence. A TV reporter called the police, who arrived, but did not intervene. Journalist Oleg Reshetnyak went on the air, described the situation, but the assaulters noticed this and took the camera during the live broadcast.
Reshetnyak was beaten during the assault. An ambulance was called to him.
UPDATE: 29 August 2019 — Police detained 49 individuals suspected of assaulting a television crew, Kharkiv region police reported.
“A conflict between security guards and journalists arose during the shooting of the video. Security guards blocked the car, tried to seize the camcorder and injured a journalist,” the Kharkiv region police press service reported.
One of the most active individuals is suspected of “obstruction of legitimate professional activity of journalists.” Two more individuals have been detained on suspicion of “threatening or abusing a journalist.”
According to police, private guards working for the logging company used violence, blocked the TV crew’s car, tried to seize the camcorder and injured the journalist. The journalist received multiple injuries to their back and kidneys, as well as bruises on their face.
Categories: Blocked Access, Physical Assault/Injury, Attack to Property, Intimidation
Source of violation: Known private individual(s)
TV correspondent harassed at nationalist rally
24 August 2019 — Nash/Maxi TV journalist Bogdan Karabyniosh was harassed on-air by unknown individuals at a nationalist march in Kyiv, Detector Media reported.
During a live broadcast, participants in the march people called the channel pro-Russian, shouted the name of the owner of the channel, Volodymyr Murayev, and Vladimir Putin. Afterwards, the unknown individuals called on the journalist to leave and not interfere with the rally. The journalist considered such actions as obstruction of his journalistic activity.
20 August 2019 — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan filed the lawsuit in the Shevchenko District Court of Kyiv against three journalists from Schemes, an investigative program that’s a joint production of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and public broadcaster UA:Pershyi. The three journalists are Nataliya Sedletska, Valeria Yegoshina, and Maksym Savchuk, Kyivpost reported.
The details of the lawsuit are currently unavailable, so it is unclear which of Schemes’ reports about the presidential aide Bohdan found defamatory.
“At this point, we have not received the text of Bohdan’s lawsuit. Therefore, we cannot comment on it,” the editorial board of Schemes wrote on Twitter on Aug. 21. “We are confident that the information we publish is reliable and are ready for the trial.”
Bohdan is a former lawyer whose most famous client was oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. After Zelenskiy’s victory in the presidential election, Bohdan was appointed his chief of staff, heightening concerns over Kolomoisky’s suspected influence on the new president.
Schemes did several investigations into Bohdan. One of them revealed his multiple trips to Tel Aviv, where Kolomoisky resided at the time, while the lawyer was de facto running Zelensky’s election campaign. The show also reported on his secret meeting with the then-head of the constitutional court.
In an interview with Ukrayinska Pravda published on April 25, Bohdan said he was preparing to sue Schemes’ journalists for spreading false information that he had taken 11 flights to Russia, six of which were through Belarus. However, the journalists never reported that. In their investigation, they said Bohdan had made three trips to Russia since 2014 and crossed the Belarusian border 11 times “in an unknown direction during 2018-2019.”
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Drunk man assaults local TV crew
16 August 2019 — A drunk patron of a shop assaulted members of a TV crew from a regional TV station in Mariupol, Mariupol News reported. The name of the TV channel and the names of journalists were not disclosed.
The individual hit the cameraman and damaged a video camera, the local police press service reported. Journalists filed a complaint to the police. The officers found the offender, who turned out to be a 44-year-old resident of Mariupol.
The incident was investigated as an “obstruction of the legitimate professional activities of journalists”, which is punishable with up to three years in prison.
Categories: Physical Assault/Injury, Attack to Property
Source of violation: Known private individual(s)
MP calls journalist “a stupid sheep”
18 August 2019 — Maxim Buzhansky, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, who belongs to president Volodymyr Zelensky’s political party, called Olga Dukhnich, a journalist working for Novoe Vremya (New Time) “a stupid sheep”, Ukrayinska Pravda reported.
“Another stupid sheep who is a journalist for the odious media Novoe Vremya said in an interview with a representative of Servant of the People political party that I was nostalgic for the USSR and president Yanukovych’s times. I understand that some colleagues are too restrained to call things by their names, so I will help them. A stupid sheep from the odious media,” Buzhanskiy posted on his Telegram public channel.
In response, Dukhnich posted on Facebook that “to answer to Mr. Buzhansky is like trying to figure out a relationship with a pigeon that shit on your coat sleeve.” The journalist called on the politician to apologise to Novoe Vremya, which is a weekly magazine.
In an interview with the leader of Servant of the People, Dmytro Razumkov, Dukhnich said that Buzhanskiy was “nostalgic for the USSR and Viktor Yanukovych’s time.” Razumkov, for his part, said the MPs should be judged for the current and future acts.
In July 2019, parliamentary elections were held. Servant of the People Zelensky’s party gained more than 43 percent of the vote.
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Court leaves journalist under house arrest
15 August 2019 — The Korolyovsky District Court of Zhytomyr ruled that journalist and blogger Vasyl Muravitsky should remain under house arrest until 12 October 2019, Ukrinform news agency reported.
Prosecutor Vadym Levchenko filed a motion to change Muravitsky’s pre-trial detention from 24-hour house arrest to remand in custody. According to the prosecutor, there were risks that Muravitsky may hide or commit similar crimes by “writing publications on anti-Ukrainian topics.”
The journalist’s lawyer, Svitlana Novitska, insisted on changing the measure of restraint on personal commitment or bail, instead of house arrest.
At a court hearing the prosecutor read out Muravitsky’s correspondence with other individuals, in which publications, various Ukrainian politicians, the organisation of a press conference and fees were mentioned. In addition, the prosecutor provided a disk with screenshots of Muravitsky’s correspondence on Facebook, Telegram, Skype, as well as the e-mails.
The lawyer noted that such evidence is clearly inadmissible and is an interference with the private correspondence of her client. The prosecutor replied that the investigating judge allowed him to examine the journalist’s correspondence. The court took into consideration the evidence provided by the prosecution, Ukrinform reported.
On 2 August 2017, Muravitsky was arrested on suspicion of treason and undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine because he worked for Russian news agencies. Until June 27 2018, the journalist was in custody, after which the court changed the preventive measure to house arrest.
On 6 August 2018, after the court hearing in Zhytomyr, activists from neo-Nazi C14 group splashed Muravitsky with the dye brilliant green as he left the building. (Known as ‘zelenka’, this dye was widely used as an antiseptic during the Soviet period but is now increasingly used in attacks against dissidents and political opponents in Russia and Ukraine, where it is still readily available. It is extremely difficult to wash off the skin, and though not as corrosive as most acids, it can cause chemical burns.)
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Man harasses TV crew in Odessa
8 August 2019 — An unidentified person interfered with and harassed a Dumskaya TV crew in a casino, Dumskaya.net reported.
The individual began to threaten the news crew when they learned that a live broadcast was in progress. “If I see myself on the TV screen, you will have a lot of trouble,” the man said to a female journalist who wanted to talk about possible gambling legislation.
The individual forcibly took the camera from the cameraman. The crew’s equipment was damaged as a result of the incident.
The journalists filed a complaint with the police.
Categories: Physical Assault/Injury, Attack to Property, Intimidation
Source of violation: Unknown
MP called to attack pro-Russian TV channels with anti-tank missile
12 August 2019 — Appearing on Pryamiy TV, People’s Front MP Serhiy Vysotsky said pro-Russian television channels should be blown up with an anti-tank missile, Strana.ua reported.
“These channels that we are talking about, they work against Ukraine — in favor of the enemy, all the journalists who work there — they are combatants of the Russian Federation. And what should be done with them is to blow them up with an anti-tank guided missile, that is, to close them,” Vysotsky said during a talk show.
The head of the National Union of Journalists, Serhiy Tomilenko, commented that the deputy’s appeal was an incitement to hostility which is criminalised in Ukraine.
“With anxiety I note the escalation of pressure on the TV channel. I hope that the new government will find the strength to preserve freedom of expression, to stop the pressure and to ensure the right of journalists to the profession,” the Channel 112 Ukraine CEO Yehor Benkendorf said.
On July 13 2019, the main office of TV Channel 112 Ukraine was attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade in Kyiv. The police still haven’t found the offenders.
During the parliamentary elections of 2019, Vysotsky ran for European Solidarity political party of the ex-president Poroshenko, but was not elected.
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Court rules against independent TV channel
6 August 2019 — The commercial court of Kyiv granted far right groupC14’s claim against Hromadske TV, Hromadske reported.
C14 filed a lawsuit against Hromadske TV “on the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation” in July 2018. One of the documents in the statement of claim featured a copy of a tweet posted to the Twitter of the media organization’s English-language service Hromadske International, which describes C14 as a “neo-Nazi group”. The tweet was posted on May 4 2018, when representatives of C14 captured and forcefully took Brazilian militant Rafael Lusvarghi to Ukraine’s Security Service.
The court noted that the information circulated by Hromadske in May 2018 “harms the reputation” of C14 and ordered Hromadske to refute the information and pay 3,500UAH ($136) in court fees to C14.
Olena Tchaikovska, the attorney for Hromadske TV, called the decision “incorrect and illegal.” “It introduces an egregious tendency that suppresses freedom of speech. We will appeal it,” she said.
“We are surprised by this decision. Not only does it contradict the judicial logic, but is also a dangerous precedent for other media and for freedom of speech in general,” editor-in-chief of Hromadske Angelina Karyakina said of the decision.
“The position of C14 is that they are not a neo-Nazi group in their activities or in the nature of their activities. They are a nationalist group, but they are by no means neo-Nazi,” said Victor Moroz, C14’s lawyer at a previous court hearing. According to Moroz, what Hromadske called the organisation harms the business reputation of C14.
Hromadske television defends its position and insisted that it did not commit any violations by characterising the organisation as “neo-Nazi.”
UPDATE:
7 August 2019 — A number of international human rights organisations have criticised the decision of the commercial court of Kyiv, the Institute of Mass Information reported.
Freedom House Ukraine qualified this decision as a dangerous precedent of interference with freedom of opinion and expression in Ukraine. “C14 can contest/deny Hromadske’s characterisation but it is the right of the media to publish their view, in good faith, based on the information they gathered” on C14 and its members, “many of whom declared that they joined the group because of its neo-Nazi orientation”, Matthew Shaaf, director of Freedom House Ukraine said on. Shaaf believes an increase in self-censorship among media in Ukraine could be the most pernicious impact of ruling against Hromadske for calling C14 neo-Nazi.
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Local TV crew assaulted
1 August 2019 – A Kapri TV crew was assaulted by unidentified individuals and a political aid of a parliamentary candidate in Pokrovsk Donetsk region, the Institute of Mass Information reported.
As a result of the assault, the cameraman received a concussion, his camera and mobile phone belong to journalist Alyona Sobolenko were damaged.
According to Sobolenko, Vitalii Verbicky, a political aide working for MP candidate Ruslan Trebushkin, broke her smartphone after snatching it from her hands as she attempted to enter the building. Verbicky then forcefully shoved the cameraman into the building where a meeting of the members of the district election commission and the city leadership was taking place.
The journalists had gone to the offices to investigate why the election commission members were not engaged in recounting a local vote, but instead were meeting with Trebushkin himself behind closed doors.
Once in the building the cameraman reported he was assaulted and his camera was broken. The individuals also destroyed the memory card containing video, Sobolenko said. The cameraman said he was threatened with further violence and that the men wanted to know if there were additional TV crews outside. The cameraman was prevented from leaving the building for half an hour.
Sobolenko, who remained in the parking lot, called the police to the scene of the incident. “The police did not arrive at once, I had to call three times, but the officers were in no hurry … We were very worried because we did not know what was going on behind closed doors in the room… We recorded the beating in the hospital, and today called an ambulance again because the cameraman had dizziness, he was diagnosed with a brain injury,” Sobolenko told IMI.
When the police finally arrived, they were prevented from accessing the building by a crowd of men, who blocked the entrance. Subsequently, the police called for reinforcements and freed the cameraman.
The journalists filed a complaint with the police. A criminal case was opened on the article “obstruction of journalists’ legal activities.”
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”108932″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]The Anti-Extradition Bill Movement began with the Hong Kong government’s attempt to amend the extradition bill, which would allow people residing in Hong Kong to be extradited to and tried in the mainland China. Within months, the protest developed into a massive and sustained movement. In one of the many marches, two million Hong Kongers showed up. Protesters also extended their goals and demanded the government investigate police brutality, drop charges against protesters who had been arrested, and implement democratic reform.
Scholars, commentators, and international observers alike are all stunned by the movement. We, common Hong Kongers, are also surprised by our own actions.
We have not achieved our goals yet, so it may sound overconfident to say that protesters worldwide can draw lessons from us. However, this movement grew out of a period of abeyance following the 2014 Umbrella Movement. We may not be able to tell others how to win a battle, but people can learn from us on how to mobilise and how to sustain a mobilisation.
Lesson One
Be tolerant to your fellow protesters who do not strictly share your tactical principles or ideologies.
The Umbrella Movement ended with a split within the opposition camp. Pan-democrats and traditional left-leaning movement groups split with localists, and militants engaged in heated and sometimes toxic verbal quarrels with pacifists and moderates. Social media such as Facebook magnified the mutual resentment. It was very demoralising.
The current movement sees a curious reengagement between militants and moderates. One major reason, of course, is that the government has become more oppressive. Blatant police brutality naturally unites people of all ideologies. Yet, we should also attribute the maintenance of unity to protesters’ willingness to learn from each other and to tolerate differences.
We may already have forgotten, but the first major resistance against the extradition bill was not on the streets. It was within the legislature. Pan-democratic lawmakers, many of whom were not comfortable with physical conflicts, made a “leap of faith” and became more militant. They filibustered, occupied chambers, surrounded a pro-Beijing lawmaker who tried to illegitimately chair the bill’s committee, and clashed with security officers. Their willingness to break some taboos earned them certain recognition from radicals and militants.
The first major test of unity came when militant protesters stormed into the legislature on 1 July, the anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China. The breaking of windows and vandalism could have easily alienated moderates. Yet, the militants tried hard to explain their action to seek understanding, and professed a strong sense of determination. Moderates, including the pan-dems, decided to not sever ties with them.
Another trial came when the controversial brawl at the airport broke out. The tying up of a reporter from the Global Times, who protesters believed was an undercover police officer from China, was certainly quite hard for moderates to swallow. However, some militants apologised the next day, providing moderates with the space to continue to stay united.
While radical militants repeatedly attacked police stations, moderates have so far tried to understand their anger and rejected the government’s accusation of riots. When moderates held a massive march the weekend after the airport demonstration, militants, despite believing that peaceful tactics were “useless,” joined in.
This unity is, of course, far from perfect. Moderates and militants continue to exchange strongly worded jibes and critiques. But both sides are more willing than before to cross the aisle. The classical tactic employed by the Chinese Communist Party to quell dissidents is the “united front”: unite with secondary enemies while attacking the major ones. In some sense, Hong Kong protesters have finally adopted this principle. Tactical and ideological differences are secondary, the primary enemy is the government. If the CCP wants to divide and destroy, then we need to unite and resist.
Lesson Two
Be water, be creative, and be humble.
“Be water” is probably the highest principle of mobilisation in this movement. The idea comes from the martial artist and film star Bruce Lee: “Be formless, shapeless, like water… Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend.” The point is to reject any form of tactical formalism.
During the Umbrella Movement, one of the major difficulties that occupants faced was that it was very costly to maintain an occupied area. It required a sustained flow of resources, a continuous presence of a critical number of occupants, and constant alert over police attack. Contentious action is tiring. Rest is much needed.
This time, protesters have adopted a repeated pattern of “march, attack and rest”: taking action (peaceful or militant) on a weekend, go home and then come out on the streets again next week.
A sustained and prolonged movement is very tiring. Creativity helps. Newness of action encourages people to fight on. The repertoire of tactics has expanded rapidly in this movement. The “traditional” marching route begins in Victoria Park on Hong Kong Island, and ends at the government headquarters. All three million-strong marches roughly followed this route. Yet, protesters have taken an unprecedented step: holding marches and assemblies all over Hong Kong.
When I joined the march on the streets of Kowloon in July, the experience was refreshing. I never imagined I could walk on roads outside the iconic Peninsular Hotel. Sometimes a new action can be very random. When the police violently arrested a student for buying laser pointers, and accused him of possessing “offensive weapons”, people were outraged. Some angry protesters surrounded the police station and were later dispersed by tear gas. On another night, protesters held a “stargazing assembly” outside the Space Museum. All the participants brought laser pointers along. It turned into “a symphony of lights” and, eventually, a dance party.
Hong Kongers are also humble enough to learn from foreign examples. In 2014, protesters imitated the Lennon Wall in Prague and made up one of their own at the occupied zone with colorful postscripts. This time, Lennon Walls sprang up everywhere. The one near the Tai Po Market subway station developed into a spectacular “Lennon Tunnel.” And on 23 August, the 30th anniversary of the Baltic Way, when a human chain stretched across the Baltics in opposition to Soviet rule, we gathered together and built our Hong Kong Way.
Scholars of social movements such as Sidney Tarrow have long been studying how movement tactics diffuse. Some tactics are modular, meaning that they are prevalent and adaptable to new settings. Yet, each specific action also has to resonate with local cultures in order to be effective and affective. In this sense, Hong Kongers “indigenised” both the Lennon Wall and the Baltic Way.
The Hong Kong Way is especially telling. Protesters formed human chains modelling three major subway lines. Moreover, one chain extended onto the symbolic Lion Rock and participants lit it up with cell phone flashlights. When protesters hung a huge yellow banner on that hill in 2014, the “Lion Rock Spirit,” which originally represented economic development, was redefined to a spirit for democracy. The spirit was redefined again by the Hong Kong Way, professing unity, persistence and hope in the face of oppression and darkness. Others far away can learn from us, just as we have learned from those far away from us in space and time
Lesson Three
Stand up to bullies.
When kids are bullied, we teach them to stand up. Retreat or concession will only embolden the bullies. But, when it comes to politics, we seem to quickly come up with the conclusion that “politics is the art of compromise”. It is very common to hear people saying: “Beijing is too strong, don’t oppose it.” “We can gain so much by befriending China, what is the point of becoming its enemies?” But condoning bullies always has consequences. We all know that.
When the Hong Kong government first introduced the proposed extradition amendments, many believed that there was no way to stop the legislation process. The almighty Beijing was behind Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, and civil society was suffering from demobilisation after 2014. The first march against the bill was so small and seemingly insignificant that no one paid serious attention to it. Lam and her colleagues were emboldened, and belittled all opposition voices, including those from the legal sector. People were outraged, and momentum was built up step by step. Our mobilisation eventually forced Lam to suspend the bill (though we are demanding a complete withdrawal).
We still do not know whether we will come out victorious. But we know that we have to fight on. For if we concede now, we will suffer from serious consequences.
Hong Kong’s aviation industry is probably one of the most progressive sectors in the city. Beijing was not happy when a small number of pilots and cabin crew voiced support for the protests. The CCP pressurised the airlines to take action. The biggest Cathay Pacific, owned by conglomerate Swire, launched a heavy crackdown against its own managers and employees to kowtow to Beijing. The reason for surrendering, of course, is the company’s heavy reliance on China’s market and airspace. By conceding to bullying, Cathay Pacific not only lost Hong Kongers’ support, but also allowed Beijing to further step up its repression. Hong Kong cannot become another Cathay.
The fight against the extradition bill is Hong Kong’s battle against Beijing’s bullying. We have conceded so much in recent years that we have learned that, in fact, concession will only invite more intrusive oppression, and even violence. This is not to say that one can start an outright war with a bully without assessing one’s own costs and benefits. Yet, principled self-defense is always necessary. If you do not stand up, no one will stand up for you.
Be water, my friend. Also, be brave and be principled.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1567590823109-829eac1b-4d0e-1″ taxonomies=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”We report on the border region’s long-term crackdown on communications well before the latest news blackout. Rituparna Chatterjee, talked to academics and journalists about what it has been like to live there” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
When the Indian government revoked Article 370 of the constitution, which had guaranteed Jammu and Kashmir autonomy, in early August 2019 there began a news blackout in the region.
Television, telephone and internet links were cut, opposition leaders arrested and no one knew what was happening. Many local journalists became uncontactable.
However even before the current crisis, it was difficult to get news out of Jammu and Kashmir. For many years, stringent restrictions on freedom of expression had become a way of life in this troubled border state.
Mobile phone signals were often blocked, and the internet was regularly turned off.
This had affected journalists’ ability to cover the region properly and meant that it was hard to get any impartial news out of the area.
Index spoke to academics and residents in July 2019 about what happened before the current crisis imposed.
For those living and working in this border state, forced co-existence with the army had become a way of life. Generations of Kashmir’s children have grown up in the shadow of the gun. The normalisation of the cheek-by-jowl existence with the armed forces, posted in the state to maintain peace, has been bitterly criticised time and again by human rights activists. In December 2018, Amnesty International observed: “A worrying pattern is emerging in Kashmir where security forces are increasingly using indiscriminate and excessive force against civilians.”
A recent report, that India rejected as “false and motivated”, by the UN Human Rights Council stated that the suppression of human rights continued unabated in the region following the Pulwama attack. (A militant attack on a police convoy on the Jammu–Srinagar highway in February 2019 in Kashmir’s Pulwama district had led to the deaths of 40 people.)
“In no other state will you see more faujis [soldiers] than residents,” said Asif Iqbal (name changed for his safety), a hotel manager in the town of Kangan, in the Ganderbal district. Even peaceful protests by locals result in disproportionate violence, he claims.
He says to live in “constant fear” of the ever-present military, wary of phones being tapped, is also censorship.
In Jammu and Kashmir, local journalists say there are particular challenges they face while reporting conflict.
“It’s like walking on the edge of a sharp sword,” one of them, Bilal Hussain, told Index. This is a sentiment that resonates with others reporting from there. Hussain is referring to the balance commentators from Kashmir have to strike to appear neutral while highlighting problems faced by locals in this border state with one of the world’s largest military presences and a regimented way of life.
Repeated attempts by Index to contact Hussain after the revocation of Article 370 have failed. His phone remains out of reach as of 23 August.
Journalists say they are quick to be labelled as working against the nation’s interest and harassed if the state perceives there to be even the slightest hint of sympathy in what they write towards those resisting Indian rule. Meanwhile, they run the risk of being labelled as statists by separatists if they hold up the state’s established position on the territorial sovereignty of Kashmir.
It’s a conflict that has widowed women, radicalised young men, killed children caught in the crossfire between armed forces and protesters, and blinded youths due to the use of pellet guns. Cross-border terrorism has taken the lives of hundreds of soldiers posted to the region, drawn from villages and towns in other parts of the country. India blames neighbouring state Pakistan of harbouring militants — a claim Pakistan denies — who routinely launch attacks on Indian forces after crossing the border.
Iqbal said: “People just want their rights. Even for peaceful protests, tear gas and pellet guns are used, whereas in every other state police only use lathis [wooden sticks]. We’re afraid to [go] out alone after 8.30pm or 9pm without a security escort for fear of being detained by the police.” Pellet guns were introduced in 2010 to subdue mass street protests.
A recent study by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), a human rights organisation, found that between January and June this year a total of 271 people were killed – 108 from the Indian armed forces, 43 civilians and 120 militants – in an escalation of violence following the Pulwama attack.
Kashmiri scholar Sheikh Showkat Hussain, who teaches international law and human rights at the Central University of Kashmir, says censorship of the press has affected the people’s right to self-determination. “In order to crush the resistance, [the government] restricts the media, they restrict the information, social media and the internet. Local dailies are denied advertisements,” he said. In 2010, he says, there was censoring of electronic press in the state followed by a freeze on government advertising – the same year some local daily titles refused to publish some of his columns, “possibly fearing backlash from the government” for giving his views a platform.
In the absence of a private sector in Kashmir, newspaper ads become a tool for those in power to control the narrative. Newspapers are mainly dependent on government advertisements and are incapacitated when the establishment puts a freeze on them.
“Indian media remains indifferent to the plight of Kashmiris,” Hussain said. “The root of alienation is denial of rights.” In recent months, as a precursor to the takeover, two of Kashmir’s newspapers had stopped getting government ads and there was a crackdown on local press following the re-election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s right-wing government.
Ghulam Jeelani Qadri, the publisher of the Urdu-language newspaper Daily Afaaq, was arrested in June over a case dating back to 1990, when Qadri published a statement by a militant group.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”Living in a militarised area is oppressive. Nobody wants to live like that.” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Journalist Aasif Sultan was arrested last year and is still in custody. Sultan had written a story commemorating the second anniversary of the death of Buhran Wani, a commander of the pro-Pakistan militant group Hizbul Mujahideen. His death had triggered protests in the Kashmir Valley.
But the situation is worse for women in Kashmir, who fight several layers of discrimination.
An independent female journalist in Pulwama district, said: “As a Kashmiri, you cannot not be neutral, but … you will be attacked by one side or the other – considered either a separatist or a statist. You are balancing a thin line.” She speaks of friends incarcerated by the police under the controversial Public Safety Act – a law that has been condemned by rights organisations as a political tool to curb dissent.
“Being a Kashmiri woman, there is a layered and structural institutionalisation of patriarchy – first we are women, then Muslim, then we are in a conflict zone… when you go out you don’t know if you will come back or not,” she said.
Kashmir is a largely conservative society with a majority-Muslim population, and women still face many curbs. Although the trend is slowly shifting, they are not encouraged to take up careers in journalism, for example. “Even now, a girl with a camera is still a shock for many people in the suburbs,” said the woman journalist. (One of the justifications given by the government for revoking Article 370 has been the restitution of the rights enjoyed by women elsewhere in India.) “We are now often prone to censoring ourselves — How is this going to impact me? Is any story worth my life?”
She says that in a recent election to the Kashmir Press Council, not a single woman was encouraged to contest.
After every violent incident in Kashmir, the government shuts down the internet to stop the spread of rumours and propaganda. A report by the Software Freedom Law Centre, which tracks internet shutdowns in India, found that the authorities were disconnecting the internet at a rate of 10 times a month in Jammu and Kashmir.
“After the Amarnath row [when protests broke out over the transfer of land to the cave shrine of Amarnath], for a year our pre-paid sim cards did not work, and SMS services were blocked for six or seven months. Even now, three or four days a week the internet remains suspended,” she said.
As with Hussain, Index has not been able to contact the female journalist following the lockdown in Kashmir and is concerned about naming her.
After the communication blockade, people were reported to be queuing outside government offices for hours for just two-minute phone conversations with family members outside Kashmir.
However, not all journalists conversant with Kashmir’s politics hold the same view on the militarisation of the region. Some consider it necessary to keep at bay arch-rival Pakistan and militants that allegedly train across the border to launch covert operations against India.
“Kashmir isn’t just another border with free access or marked boundaries at all locations,” said Aditya Raj Kaul, a Srinagar-born editor who covers strategic affairs and internal security for a business media network. “For the last few decades, state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan has led to violence and chaos in the state which has further resulted in killings of several journalists, writers and activists. For instance, in recent times several political activists actively campaigning for democratic polls have been gunned down by terrorists.
Referring to the founding editor of Srinagar-based newspaper Rising Kashmir, who was gunned down outside his office, Kaul added: “Shujaat Bukhari was killed by terrorists last year just after he returned from Dubai, where he was participating in a peace summit. Similarly, several journalists and writers face pressure from radical elements to tow a particular line against the state or face consequences.
“There is a fear [and] psychosis created by local politicians for their vested interests. Local media in Kashmir that have been found critical of the state and the establishment haven’t faced any hurdles or threats to their livelihoods or professional lives.”
Senior journalist and author Shiv Aroor said: “The intention is to demilitarise as much as possible, but you have to remember that we are dealing with an unpredictable, insidious country on the other side – a country that has proven not to care about civilian life and continues a proxy war through militant groups which are frequently harming the local population and which has taken locals psychologically hostage. They are not allowing things to normalise, and eventually it becomes a vicious circle in which all incentive for economic progress of the region is not being allowed to take hold.”
There are pockets in Kashmir’s tentative border where commercial interests have defied the terrorists, but trade is disrupted every time there’s an incident or a border skirmish.
“You are facing an international threat here. It’s a question of sovereignty …When there are visible attempts to take control of [Indian] territory, you need the army to have boots on the ground because Kashmir is unlike any other border,” said Aroor, who has covered the Indian military for more than a decade.
“Living in a militarised area is oppressive. Nobody wants to live like that,” he added, but in the face of stone-pelting by youths, the army and the police often have to make split-second decisions to protect not just themselves but the lives of civilians and stop the possibility of an escalation of violence.
As Kashmir remains tense, civil rights activists are keeping up their pressure on the government to open up communication lines — a goodwill measure that they say will help gain back the trust of the Kashmiri people.
Rituparna Chatterjee is a freelance journalist based in New Delhi
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”How governments use power to undermine justice and freedom” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2019%2F06%2Fmagazine-judged-how-governments-use-power-to-undermine-justice-and-freedom%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The summer 2019 Index on Censorship magazine looks at the narrowing gap between a nation’s leader and its judges and lawyers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”107686″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/06/magazine-judged-how-governments-use-power-to-undermine-justice-and-freedom/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
