On Tuesday, the UK learned that radical cleric Anjem Choudary had been convicted under Section 12 of the UK’s 2000 Terrorism Act, which makes it a crime to invite “support for a proscribed organisation”. Choudary had long argued that, in advocating his support for the creation of an Islamic state and the imposition of sharia law, he was simply exercising his right to free speech. And this was true. Like any other citizen, Choudary should be allowed to express his political views, no matter how vile or abhorrent.
But there is also no doubt that Choudary trod a very careful and deliberate line. Choudary understands that in a free and democratic society (the kind to which Choudary would like to see a violent end), the only occasions on which free speech should be curtailed is when the speech provokes – or presents a clear and imminent danger of provoking – violence. Beyond that line, no one, including Choudary, should be prevented from expressing their view.
If free speech is to mean anything, then free speech rights must apply equally.
The immediate question, then, is whether Choudary was advocating violence? In Index’s view, he was. Choudary was convicted of encouraging followers to join IS, a proscribed terrorist organisation. Although he did not directly incite violence, he was calling on others to join a group whose avowed aims are victory through violence. In this context, the definition of a proscribed group becomes crucial. Proscribed groups should only be ones that directly use and incite violence, not simply political parties whose views do not chime with those of the government or even the majority of the population. This is a vital line.
If free speech is to mean anything, then free speech rights must apply equally: as much to those whose views we abhor as to those whom we support. Choudary deliberately exploited liberal values to advocate wholly illiberal ones. So it is critical that in responding to the likes of Choudary that we do not respond by shifting further towards the kind of illiberal society he favours. The laws which (should) protect Choudary’s right to envisage the imposition of an Islamic state are the same that protect the rights of the rest of us to voice our opposition: the best way to dispute views you disagree with is openly, rather than driving them underground where they can grow.
Index is concerned at the current direction of travel in anti-extremism law and its damaging implications for free speech. New leglisation is currently under consideration that would target those who advocate extremist views but do not directly encourage violence. This could include banning orders that would prevent non-violent extremists from speaking or publishing – a move that risks undermining the democratic judicial process, as David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation told BBC’s Today programme.
This is a dangerous road to go down. The definition of terrorism is already contentious and further defining ‘non-violent’ extremism almost impossible. Indeed, Christian groups have already expressed concern that the proposed new law would, for example, prevent an opponent of gay marriage from expressing such a view. Nor should we use the examples of Choudary’s use of social media to greenlight enforcing social media companies to act as arms of the law, making decisions about content removal that should be made by courts.
Across the world, Index defends the rights of those who express views their government deems ‘extremist’. Choudary is an extremist. His views are repugnant and to be countered at every opportunity, but he should be allowed to express them.
For the past six months the Index on Censorship Youth Advisory Board has attended monthly online meetings to discuss and debate free speech issues. For their final assignment we asked members to write about the issue they felt passionately about that took place during their time on the board.
Simon Engelkes – Terrorism and the media in Turkey
When three suicide bombers opened fire before blowing themselves up at Istanbul Atatürk airport on 28 June 2016, Turkey’s social media went quiet. While the attacks were raging in the capital’s airport, the government of president Recep Tayyip Erdogan blocked social networks Facebook and Twitter and ordered local media not to report the details of the incident – in which at least 40 people were killed and more than 200 injured – for “security reasons”.
An order by the Turkish prime minister’s office banned sharing visuals of the attacks and any information on the suspects. An Istanbul court later extended the ban to “any written and visual media, digital media outlets, or social media”. Şamil Tayyar, a leading deputy of the ruling Justice and Development Party said: “I wish those who criticise the news ban would die in a similar blast.”
Hurriyet newspaper counted over 150 gag orders by the government between 2010 and 2014. And in March 2015, Turkey’s Constitutional Court approved a law allowing the country’s regulator to ban content to secure the “protection of national security and public order” without a prior court order. Media blackouts are a common government tactic in Turkey, with broadcast bans also put in place after the bombings in Ankara, Istanbul and Suruç.
Emily Wright – The politics of paper and indirect censorship in Venezuela
Soaring inflation, high crime rates, supply shortages and political upheaval all typically make front-page news. Not so in Venezuela, where many newspapers have suspended printing because of a shortage of newsprint.
For over a year now, the socialist government of Nicolás Maduro has centralised all paper imports through the Corporación Maneiro, now in charge of the distribution of newsprint. It is a move the political opposition is calling a form of media censorship, given that many newspapers critical of Chavismo and Maduro’s regime, have been struggling to obtain paper to print news.
In January, 86 newspapers declared a state of emergency, announcing they were out of stock and their capacity to print news was at risk. El Carabobeño, which is critical of the government and Chavismo, stopped circulating in March due to a lack of paper. A year earlier the newspaper had been forced to change its format to a tabloid, and reduce its pages, after running as a standard newspaper since 1933.
Censorship is an long-term problem in Venezuela but it is taking new, covert forms under Hugo Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro. Media outlets are being economically strangled through tight regulation. On top of this huge fines for spurious charges of defamation or indecency linked to articles have become commonplace. Correo del Coroni, the most important newspaper in the south of the country, went bankrupt in this fashion. In March it was fined a million dollars and its director sentenced to four years in jail for defamation against a Venezuelan businessman. A month earlier it was forced to print only at weekends after being systematically denied newsprint.
Under Maduro’s regime, censorship in Venezuela has gone from piecemeal to systemic and the public’s right to information has been lost in the mix. Unable to mask the country’s hard realities with populist promises like his predecessor did, Maduro has been cracking down on the media instead.
Reporters Without Borders recently rated the press in Venezuela as being among the least free in the world, ranking it 139 out of 180 countries, below Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. Freedom House recently rated the press in Venezuela as Not free.
Mark Crawford – The UK government’s anti-BDS policy
In February this year, the British government banned public boycotts of Israeli goods. In recent years, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign has become popular among those in opposition to the oppression of the Palestinian people, whereby Israeli goods, services and individuals are evaded or censored.
It’s illogical to punish an entire nation, as BDS does, for the actions of those in power. The answer to this illiberal policy must not be, however, to hand greater power to faceless, bureaucratic law enforcement to suppress freedom of expression.
As a result of the government’s clampdown, the board of trustees at my students’ union, UCLU, has already overridden a pro-BDS position democratically endorsed – however poorly – by its Union Council; but as well as emboldening the very illiberal voices that thrive on the aloof vilification of bureaucrats, the board even elected to censor council’s harmless and necessary expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people.
The cure for faulty ideas and tactics is better ideas and better politics – translated through debate and honest self-reflection. Not only have legal shortcuts never worked, but they’re ideologically hypocritical and politically suicidal.
Ian Morse – Twitter’s safety council
Twitter unveiled its safety council in February. Its purpose is to ensure that people can continue to “express themselves freely and safely” on Twitter, yet there are no free speech organisations included.
So while the group ostensibly wants to create safety, its manifesto and practice suggest otherwise. The group doesn’t stop incitements of violence, it stops offensive speech. Safety only refers to the same attempts to create “safe spaces” that have appeared in so many other places. There is a difference between stopping the promotion of violence within a group – as Twitter did with 125,000 terrorism-related accounts – and stopping people from hearing other people’s views. Twitter has a mute and block button, but has also resorted to “shadow banning”.
It’s indicative of two wider trends: the consolidation of “speech management” in Silicon Valley, and the calamitous division of the liberal left into those who allow the other side to speak and those who do not.
Layli Foroudi – Denied the freedom to connect: censorship online in Russia
The United Nations Human Rights Commission has brought the human rights framework into the digital age with the passing of a resolution for the “promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the internet”, particularly freedom of expression.
Russia opposed the resolution. This is unsurprising as the government institutionalises censorship in legislation, using extremism, morality and state security as justifications. Since November 2012, the media regulatory body Roskomnadzor has maintained an internet blacklist. Over 30,000 online resources were listed in April, plus 600,000 websites that are inaccessible due to being located on the same IP address as sites with “illegal” information.
This year, the internet in Russia has experienced increased censorship and site filtering under the influence of Konstantin Malofeev whose censorship lobbying group, the Safe Internet League, has been pushing for stricter standards in the name of Christian Orthodox morality, freedom from extremism and American influence.
Activists in Russia have claimed that their messages, sent using encrypted chat service Telegram, have been hacked by Russian security forces. Surveillance was what originally drove Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram and social network VKontakte, to set up the encrypted service as he and his colleagues felt the need to correspond without the Russian security services “breathing down their necks”. Durov himself lives in the US, a move prompted by the forced sale of VKontakte to companies closely aligned with the Kremlin, after the social network reportedly facilitated the 2011 protests against the rigging of parliamentary elections. His departure confirms theories about the chilling effect that crackdowns on expression can have on innovation and technology in a country.
In June a new law was passed which requires news aggregators, surpassing one million users daily, to check the “truthfulness” of information shared. Ekaterina Fadeeva, a spokesperson for Yandex, the biggest search engine in Russia, said that Yandex News would not be able to exist under such conditions.
Madeleine Stone – The murder of Joe Cox
The brutal daylight murder of Yorkshire MP Jo Cox may not initially seem like a freedom of speech issue.
In Britain, we imagine political assassinations to take place in more volatile nations. We are often complacent that our right to free speech in the UK is guaranteed. But whilst there are people intimidating, attacking and murdering others for expressing, campaigning on and fighting for their beliefs, this right is not safe. For democracy to work, people need to believe that they are free to fight for what they believe is right, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. Jo Cox’s murder, which for the most part has been forgotten by British media, should be a wake-up call to Britain that our freedom of speech cannot be taken for granted.
Index on Censorship is part of the Defend Free Speech campaign against the introduction of new freedom of speech laws. The following is a letter by Defend Free Speech’s campaign director Simon Calvert.
It was with considerable alarm that we watched the recent evidence session of counter-extremism minister, Karen Bradley, before Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.
In a little over an hour, Mrs Bradley put forward no fewer than ten possible definitions of ‘extremism’, including: “The public promotion of an ideology that can lead to greater harms”; and “publicly promoting an ideology where the activity they are undertaking is not criminal and does not go beyond reasonable doubt but we know that that activity leads to a hate crime, a terrorist activity, or maybe FGM”.
We wrote to the minister to set out our fears. Here’s what we said:
The Defend Free Speech campaign, and many of the groups associated with it, are greatly concerned that the proposed ‘civil orders regime’ will damage both security and civil liberties. They risk distracting the authorities away from terrorism and violence and into monitoring and punishing legitimate expressions of opinion.
Finding terrorists and their enablers is like finding a needle in a haystack. Forcing the police and security services to operate at the much lower threshold of ‘non-violent extremism’ will massively increase the range of people and ideas under investigation, thereby making the haystack considerably bigger. Placing millions more people under suspicion is more likely to mask the activities of terrorists than to highlight them.
Your difficulty in articulating a clear, consistent definition of the kind of activity the Government aims to punish via civil orders was very concerning. The Home Office has been working on the issue for well over a year and yet the impression was given that the Government still has no clear idea how to legislate for what it wants to achieve.
Harriet Harman summed up the situation accurately when she told the committee:
Still we don’t know what civil orders are being talked about, we don’t know what the sanctions are likely to be, we don’t know what the definitions are, we have no specificity about the timetable in terms of when the consultation will start, how long it will be. We know there won’t be a draft Bill, but we really are none the wiser about anything else’.
We were grateful that you confirmed that there would be a public consultation. But for the consultation to have any value, and for stakeholders to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome, it must include precise statutory definitions that can then be subjected to scrutiny.
As members of the Committee pointed out, a consultation will be worthless if it does not give the actual wording with which the Government intends to resolve the tension between security and liberty. As it is, the planned consultation looks more a fishing expedition, carried out in the hope that somebody somewhere has a good idea of how this legislation could be drafted.
We concluded by requesting an urgent meeting with the minister, and reassurances of a further consultation when the Home Office can tell the public how it actually plans to legislate in this incredibly sensitive and important area.
As we said quite clearly to the minister, when the matters at stake include terrorism and the fundamental civil liberties of millions, the Home Office cannot simply shrug its shoulders and say ‘we’re not sure what we’re doing’.
The groups backing Defend Free speech wrote to the Home Office back in January requesting a consultation on Extremism Disruption Orders. Having failed to respond for five months, the Government finally conceded the need for such a consultation in the Queen’s Speech in May.
Thank you for standing with us to Defend Free Speech.
Best wishes,
Simon Calvert
Campaign Director Defend Free Speech
The government’s planned Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill must be carefully crafted to avoid damaging freedom of expression.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
The government’s plans to tackle extremism through a “new civil order regime” and other measures must not undermine the very values it aims to defend, free expression organisations said on Wednesday.
Index on Censorship, English PEN, the National Secular Society, the Christian Institute, ARTICLE 19, Big Brother Watch, Manifesto Club and the Peter Tatchell Foundation welcomed plans to consult on the matter, following their demands earlier this year.
The proposals for a new law, outlined in the Queen’s Speech, are more ambiguous than earlier proposals made by this government, but nevertheless leave open broad measures to police a wide swathe of speech and should be resisted, the groups said.
The new legislation will include giving law enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people – including children – “from those who seek to brainwash them with extremism propaganda so we build a stronger society around our shared liberal values of tolerance and respect”, according to the background notes accompanying the Queen’s Speech.
More specifically, the government proposals are to legislate:
· Stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public.
· Powers to intervene in intensive unregulated education settings which teach hate and drive communities apart.
· A new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity, following consultation.
· Closing loopholes so that Ofcom can continue to protect consumers who watch internet-streamed television content from outside the EU on Freeview.
The new proposals should avoid creating an environment that could make it even harder for people of all faiths and ideologies to express their beliefs and opinions, the groups said. Current legislation already prohibits incitement to violence and terrorism, and a compelling case for broadening them further through civil measures has not been made.
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
The groups said plans to introduce new laws in this area presented three main risks:
1. Definitions
It is still not clear how new legislation would deal with the problem of defining “extremism” in a way that would not threaten free speech.
The government has previously defined extremism broadly as “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The continued lack of a clear definition risks outlawing any political expression that does not reflect mainstream or popular views.
Britain already has a host of laws to tackle the incitement of terrorist acts, as well as racial and religious hatred. The government has previously been criticised for the broad definitions of “terrorism” in existing legislation, and the definition of ”extremism” in the Prevent Strategy. The proposed bill must not introduce new vague terminology and widen the net even further.
“The government’s approach to extremism is unfocused. Unless we can make them see sense, the range of people who could find themselves labelled ‘extremist’ by their own government is about to get a whole lot wider,” said Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute.
2. Nature of new civil orders
The government is ambiguous on whether they are still considering “extremism disruption orders” or “banning orders” within the package of civil measures. Though the promised consultation is welcome, these draconian measures are clearly not off the table.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, has said previously that extremists need to be exposed, challenged and countered. The proposed measures would have the opposite effect and should not find their way into the new civil order regime.
“Extremism banning orders could mean political activists – or any other activists deemed to be ‘anti-democratic’ – such as environmental activists – could be outlawed in future, thereby undermining democracy itself,” said Jo Glanville, Director of English PEN.
Extremist disruption orders (EDO), suggested under earlier plans for the bill, could have a similar chilling effect on free expression and democracy. Under original plans for EDOs, the police would be able to apply to the high court for an order to restrict the “harmful activities” of an “extremist” individual. The definition of “harmful” could include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or the ill-defined “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: “The prosecution thresholds for EDOs – as originally envisaged – are worryingly low – civil, not criminal – yet the consequences of granting of such an order, even if not broken, are likely to be very serious, e.g. rendering the recipient unemployable. Few faced with such a threat are likely to have the resources to mount any defence as proceedings will be at the High Court.”
“No convincing case has been made for the necessity of new measures to restrict free speech. Existing measures are already deterring individuals and groups from engaging in open debate on important issues. The plans re-announced today, though watered down, do not sufficiently address criticism the government has received; they not only threaten to further chill legitimate speech, but may also fuel divisive ideologies and make us less safe,” said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.
3. International implications
Governments across the world – such as Russia, Turkey and Egypt – are increasingly using national security laws to censor free expression, including in the media. The government’s moves are likely to legitimise and embolden these efforts, setting a counter-productive example.
UN and regional human rights experts have jointly raised concerns regarding the potential impact of broadly defined initiatives to counter violent extremism on the free expression of minority and dissenting views. They have called for responses to violent extremism to be evidence based, and to respect international human rights law on freedom of expression and non-discrimination.
Conclusion
We call on the government to consult widely with all stakeholders, including civil society and minority groups, to ensure that a bill intended to tackle extremism does not undermine one of the values at the heart of democracy: that of free speech for all.
For more information or to arrange interviews, please contact:
– Melody Patry, head of advocacy, Index on Censorship. [email protected]; 0207 963 7262
– Robert Sharp, head of communications, English PEN [email protected]; 020 7324 2535
