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_column_text]Monday 26th August 2019
Rt. Hon. Nicky Morgan MP Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 100 Parliament Street London SW1A 2BQ
Dear Rt. Hon. Nicky Morgan MP,
The undersigned organisations, including Scottish PEN, ARTICLE 19, English PEN, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Index on Censorship, National Union of Journalists Scotland and Reporters Without Borders, are concerned by the recent attack on journalist Owen Jones and the worsening state of press freedom both in the UK and across the globe. We call on the UK authorities to take all necessary actions to investigate this attack, prosecute those responsible and commit to ensuring press freedom is protected.
The Guardian columnist Owen Jones was celebrating his birthday with friends when he was violently assaulted outside a London pub in the early morning of 17 August 2019. While the motivation behind this attack is unclear at this stage, it should be viewed in the context of a wider set of threats made against Jones, based on his writing and political positions. This includes a photo taken of him without his knowledge in a pub, with the caption “I can get close to your like minded people it’s scary. Do not underestimate my talents of my past and present I even know your address of all you radicals.” The day after the attack, The Guardian reported that “there had been ‘chatter online’ about the incident at the Lexington pub on Pentonville Road hours before [Jones] went public about it on Saturday afternoon”. Jones himself reported that “football hooligans were boasting in closed groups along the lines of ‘Owen Jones has been done in, in Islington’”.
While journalism comes with risks, no journalist should ever be attacked in connection with their work or in their personal life. Disagreement, however hyperbolic or antagonistic, should never lead to violence. Every attack on a writer shuts down debate and sends a dangerous signal to others, encouraging them to avoid sensitive topics, however important, that may invite threats of violence.
Unfortunately, in the UK – which is currently ranked 33rd out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index – this is one of many attacks on journalists in recent times. Over the past year alone, journalist Lyra McKee was killed while reporting events in Derry, photographer Joel Goodman was assaulted while covering a demonstration
in Manchester, a BBC camera crew was attacked by supporters of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) outside the Old Bailey in London, and in Northern Ireland, journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey faced early morning raids at their homes, were detained and questioned, and had charges brought against them and equipment confiscated in connection to their reporting on leaked documents related to the 1994 Loughinisland massacre. Such actions constitute a significant threat to press freedom, the right to free expression and to society at large as the public will be less able to access independent and impartial information.
Around the world, journalism is becoming a more hazardous profession. Mexico remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist, with over 150 journalists being murdered since 2000; hundreds of journalists have been arrested and convicted in politically motivated criminal cases in Turkey; journalists across Europe have been assassinated for their work uncovering networks of corruption and abuses of power including state entities, senior politicians and organised crime networks; and The Intercept Brazil is under increasing threats for its coverage of state corruption in Brazil. This is a small snapshot of the threats that journalists endure around the world. At a time when journalists are being decried as traitors, saboteurs, ‘enemies of the people’, or accused of participating in ‘Project Fear’, and journalism itself is being devalued, the space for a free press is severely shrinking.
At the Global Conference for Media Freedom in London in July 2019, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office brought together leading experts to explore ways the UK and other like-minded states can meaningfully protect journalists across the globe. This was an important step, but concrete action needs to follow to ensure the issues raised are not ignored. The commitments undertaken will ring hollow if we are silent on the threats to press freedom within the UK.
Every journalist, whether a reporter, investigative journalist, columnist, editor or cartoonist deserves all necessary protections to ensure they can continue their work free from threats of violence. If journalists are threatened into silence, we suffer, and our democracy suffers. The undersigned organisations call on all relevant UK authorities to live up to their commitments to the right to freedom of expression and to ensure that all journalists are safe to continue their work across the United Kingdom.
We look forward to hearing from you and would be interested to schedule a meeting to talk about these issues in more detail.
Yours sincerely,
Carl MacDougall, President, Scottish PEN
Sarah Clarke, Head of Europe and Central Asia, ARTICLE 19
Maureen Freely, Chair of Trustees, English PEN
Nora Wehofsits, Advocacy Officer, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Joy Hyvarinen, Head of Advocacy, Index on Censorship
John Toner, National Organiser for Scotland, National Union of Journalists Scotland
Rebecca Vincent, UK Bureau Director, Reporters Without Borders [/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1566893600598-fdac8bc8-eaed-3″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Index editor Rachael Jolley argues in the summer 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine that it is vital to defend the distance between a nation’s leaders and its judges and lawyers, but this gap being narrowed around the world” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
It all started with a conversation I had with a couple of journalists working in tough countries. We were talking about what kind of protection they still had, despite laws that could be used to crack down on their kind of journalism – journalism that is critical of governments.
They said: “When the independence of the justice system is gone then that is it. It’s all over.”
And they felt that while there were still lawyers prepared to stand with them to defend cases, and judges who were not in the pay of – or bowed by – government pressure, there was still hope. Belief in the rule of law, and its wire-like strength, really mattered.
These are people who keep on writing tough stories that could get them in trouble with the people in power when all around them are telling them it might be safer if they were to shut up.
This sliver of optimism means a great deal to journalists, activists, opposition politicians and artists who work in countries where the climate is very strongly in favour of silence. It means they feel like someone else is still there for them.
I started talking to journalists, writers and activists in other places around the world, and I realised that although many of them hadn’t articulated this thought, when I mentioned it they said: “Yes, yes, that’s right. That makes a real difference to us.”
So why – and how – do we defend the system of legal independence and make more people aware of its value? It’s not something you hear being discussed in the local bar or café, after all.
Right now, we need to make a wider public argument about why we all need to stand up for the right to an independent justice system.
[/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=”On an ordinary day, most of us are not in court or fighting a legal action, so it is only when we do, or we know someone who is, that we might realise that something important has been eroded” 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_text]
We need to do it because it is at the heart of any free country, protecting our freedom to speak, think, debate, paint, draw and put on plays that produce unexpected and challenging thoughts. The wider public is not thinking “hey, yes, I worry that the courts are run down, and that criminal lawyers are in short supply”, or “If I took a case to trial and won my case I can no longer claim my lawyer’s fees back from the court”. On an ordinary day, most of us are not in court or fighting a legal action, so it is only when we are, or when we know someone who is, that we might realise that something important has been eroded.
Our rights are slowly, piece by piece, being undermined when our ability to access courts is severely limited, when judges feel too close to presidents or prime ministers, and when lawyers get locked up for taking a case that a national government would rather was not heard.
All those things are happening in parts of the world right now.
In China, hundreds of lawyers are in prison; in England and Wales since 2014 it has become more risky financially for most ordinary people to take a case to court as those who win a case no longer have their court fees paid automatically; and in Brazil the new president, Jair Bolsonaro, has just appointed a judge who was very much part of his election campaign to a newly invented super-ministerial role.
Helpfully, there are some factors that are deeply embedded in many countries’ legal histories and cultures that make it more difficult for authoritarian leaders to close the necessary space between the government and the justice system.
Many people who go into law, particularly human-rights law, do so with a vision of helping those who are fighting the system and have few powerful friends. Others hate being pressurised. And in many countries there are elements of the legal system that give sustenance to those who defend the independence of the judiciary as a vital principle.
Nelson Mandela’s lawyer, Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, has made the point that judges recruited from an independent bar would never entirely lose their independence, even when the system pressurised them to do so.
He pointed out that South African lawyers who had defended black men accused of murder in front of all-white juries during the apartheid period were not easily going to lose their commitment to stand up against the powerful.
Sir Sydney did, however, also argue that “in the absence of an entrenched bill of rights, the judiciary is a poor bulwark against a determined and immoderate government” in a lecture printed in Free Country, a book of his speeches.
So it turned out that this was the right time to think about a special report on this theme of the value of independent justice, because in lots of countries this independence is under bombardment.
It’s not that judges and lawyers haven’t always come under pressure. In his book The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham, a former lord chief justice of England and Wales, mentions a relevant historical example. When Earl Warren, the US chief justice, was sitting on the now famous Brown v Board of Education case in 1954, he was invited to dinner with President Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower sat next to him at dinner and the lawyer for the segregationists sat on his other side. According to Warren, the president went to great lengths to promote the case for the segregationists, and to say what a great man their lawyer was. Despite this, Warren went on to give the important judgement in favour of Brown that meant that racial segregation in public schools became illegal.
Those in power have always tried to influence judges to lean the way they would prefer, but they should not have weapons to punish those who don’t do so.
In China, hundreds of lawyers who stood up to defend human-rights cases have been charged with the crime of “subverting state power” and imprisoned. When the wife of one of the lawyers calls on others to support her husband, her cries go largely unheard because people are worried about the consequences.
This, as Karoline Kan writes on p23, is a country where the Chinese Communist Party has control of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government, and where calls for political reform, or separation of powers, can be seen as threats to stability.
As we go to press we are close to the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square killings, when thousands of protesters all over China, from all kinds of backgrounds, had felt passionately that their country was ready for change – for democracy, transparency and separation of powers.
Unfortunately, that tide was turned back by China’s government in 1989, and today we are, once more, seeing China’s government tightening restrictions even further against those who dare to criticise them.
Last year, the Hungarian parliament passed a law allowing the creation of administrative courts to take cases involving taxation and election out of the main legal system (see p34). Critics saw this as eroding the gap between the executive and the justice system. But then, at the end of May 2019, there was a U-turn, and it was announced that the courts were no longer going ahead. It is believed that Fidesz, the governing party in Hungary, was under pressure fromits grouping in the European Parliament, the European People’s Party.
If it were kicked out of the EPP, Hungary would have in all likelihood lost significant funding, and it is believed there was also pressure from the European Parliament to protect the rule of law in its member states.
But while this was seen as a victory by some, others warned things could always reverse quickly.
Overall the world is fortunate to have many lawyers who feel strongly about freedom of expression, and the independence of any justice system.
Barrister Jonathan Price, of Doughty Street Chambers, in London, is part of the team advising the family of murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia over a case against the Maltese government for its failure to hold an independent inquiry into her death.
He explained why the work of his colleagues was particularly important, saying: “The law can be complex and expensive, and unfortunately the laws of defamation, privacy and data protection have become so complex that they are more or less inoperable in the hands of the untrained.”
Specialist lawyers who were willing to take on cases had become a necessary part of the rule of law, he said – a view shared by human-rights barrister David Mitchell, of Ely Place Chambers, in London.
“The rule of law levels the playing field between the powerful and [the] powerless,” he said. “It’s important that lawyers work to preserve this level.”
Finally, another thought from Sir Sydney that is pertinent to how the journalists I mentioned at the beginning of this article keep going against the odds: “It is not necessary to hope in order to work, and it is not necessary to succeed in order to hope in order to work, and it is not necessary to succeed in order to persevere.”
Rachael Jolley is editor of Index on Censorship. She tweets @londoninsider. This article is part of the latest edition of Index on Censorship magazine, with its special report on local news
Index on Censorship’s spring 2019 issue is entitled Is this all the local news? What happens if local journalism no longer holds power to account?
Look out for the new edition in bookshops, and don’t miss our Index on Censorship podcast, with special guests, on Soundcloud.
[/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.
It all started with a conversation I had with a couple of journalists working in tough countries. We were talking about what kind of protection they still had, despite laws that could be used to crack down on their kind of journalism 
