16 Oct 22 | Greece, Malta, Netherlands, News and features, Northern Ireland, Slovakia
It shouldn’t have taken a murder. Surely it didn’t need a car bomb in a quiet Maltese town. Daphne Caruana Galizia did not need to die for Europe and the rest of the world to take notice of media freedom’s precarious foundations. But to our shame, it did.
Five years ago today, Daphne was murdered by a car bomb that exploded when she was moments from her front door. But the car bomb was only the mechanism by which she was silenced. Daphne was murdered by the opaque but powerful forces that first encourage, before demanding and eventually forcing silence. But she was never rendered mute, even now.
In the years that have followed, Europe has wrestled both with her legacy – what her investigations revealed – as well as the legacy of her killing – what her murder revealed. In the aftermath of similar killings in Northern Ireland (Lyra McKee), Slovakia (Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová), Greece (Giorgos Karaivaz) and the Netherlands (Peter R. de Vries), as well as increased attention on the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), Europe has been forced to address an uncomfortable reality: journalists are at risk all across the continent. And so, by extension, is European democracy.
This is the dark light that bathes Europe, a light emanating from the brutal collapse of the rule of law but also a light that can illuminate what is broken. In the five years that have passed since her death, Daphne’s family have had to fight for every inch to demand both justice for Daphne and accountability for Malta. Whether this was to demand a public inquiry, pressing for progress in the criminal investigation, and putting SLAPPs on the European agenda, the rage, sadness and fury has fuelled a reckoning that has helped bring forward a proposed European Commission directive on SLAPPs, a Europe-wide coalition of organisations fighting to upend this form of lawfare, as well as similar movements at a national level.
In the UK, spurred on by Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine, the UK Government announced in July 2022 an anti-SLAPP mechanism that could limit how UK courts are abused to silence critical speech. As we wait to see what happens – especially after the change in Prime Minister and her cabinet – we hope we are at the threshold of something significant. It is important to remember that a number of the libel threats against Daphne were deployed with the aid of London-based legal expertise – SLAPPs cannot be confined within national borders.
But we must return to Malta to remind ourselves of the pitfalls. Recently announced reforms aimed at protecting journalism, including much-vaunted anti-SLAPP protections, have had to be hurriedly frozen by the Prime Minister after being widely derided as inadequate, both in terms of content, falling far short of the proposed EC Directive, and process. The Institute of Maltese Journalists (IGM) had threatened to step away from the Committee of Experts unless “meaningful” consultation takes place. This was echoed by both the International and European Federations of Journalists (IFJ and EFJ) who have joined the call for the legislation to be withdrawn, as reported in Maltese outlet, NewsBook: “no proposal on media legislative reform should be submitted to the parliament without a transparent public consultation. This is all the more crucial in a country where a state holds some form of responsibility for the killing of a journalist.” While appearing to be fuelled by a desire to be the first EU nation to bring forward national legislation responding to SLAPPs, a grimy sense of competitive haste has seemingly triumphed over a commitment to genuine and meaningful protections.
Today, vigils remembering Daphne’s legacy – her life, her writing, and her commitment to the public’s right to know – are taking place across Europe, in London, Valletta, Brussels and Edinburgh to name a few. But wherever we are, we must ensure that by remembering Daphne’s life, we are reminded of our commitment to protect journalists against vexatious legal threats, physical attacks and every act that isolates, demonises or targets them.
Progress is slow and halting and will not proceed from one point to the next without obstruction – Malta’s current reform process is testament to that – however, the greatest way we can honour Daphne is by moving with purpose to ensure what happened to her cannot happen to another journalist. The dark light has illuminated what needs to change and the urgency with which it must change. It should not have taken the murder of a journalist for this to happen and we must not forget the darkness that sparked this push for greater protections, a darkness that robbed a family of the private space in which to mourn, but we must follow where the light leads. For in Daphne’s words, “There are crooks everywhere you look. The situation is desperate.
11 Oct 22
What is the Index Index? The Index Index is a pilot project that uses innovative machine learning techniques to map the free expression landscape across the globe to gain a clearer country-by-country view of the state of free expression across academic, digital and...
03 Feb 22 | China, Hong Kong, News and features
Athlete protest has been almost as common a feature of the Olympic Games as elite sporting achievement since its modern inception at the turn of the 20th century.
At the 1906 Games, Irish triple jumper Peter O’Connor protested his registration as a British athlete – Ireland did not have a national Olympic committee at the time – by scaling the flagpole during the award ceremony and waving an Irish flag.
The official recognition of the Games as a platform for protest happened in 1955 when then president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Avery Brundage wrote guidelines into the Olympic bylaws. These stated that Olympic host cities had to ensure “no political demonstrations will be held in the stadium or other sport grounds, or in the Olympic Village, during the Games, and that it is not the intention to use the Games for any other purpose than for the advancement of the Olympic Movement”.
This did not stop perhaps the best known of all Olympic protests – the Black Power demonstrations at the 1968 Mexico Olympics when American 200-metre athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their gloved hands in salute during the US national anthem.
Further changes to athletes’ rights to express themselves were codified in a 1975 update to the Olympic Charter in rule 55, which simply said, “Every kind of demonstration or propaganda, whether political, religious or racial, in the Olympic areas is forbidden”.
The IOC has since moved away from this total ban and now declares itself to be “fully supportive of freedom of expression”.
And yet the most recent version of the rule on athlete expression, now known as Rule 50, state that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. It does though allow for expressing views outside Olympic sites and venues or before and after the Games. Athletes are also permitted to express their views in press conferences, during interviews and through their own social media channels.
In 2020 IOC member Dick Pound wrote: “Everyone has the right to political opinion and the freedom to express such opinions. The IOC fully agrees with that principle and has made it absolutely clear that athletes remain free to express their opinions in press conferences, in media interviews and on social media. But, in a free society, rights may come with certain limitations. Rule 50 restricts the occasions and places for the exercise of such rights. It does not impinge on the rights themselves.”
Athletes recognised just how much of a platform the games give them to express themselves, particularly with the global, 24-hour coverage afforded to it in modern times. As a result, they’ve always pushed back against bans. For example, at the delayed 2020 Tokyo Olympics, many athletes and teams took the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement within Olympic venues.
So what can we expect from Beijing?
When China last hosted the Olympics in Beijing in 2008, it was a dramatically different country. One continuity was the human rights situation and there were protests organised by activists about human rights abuses in Tibet during those Games. Athletes however kept quiet.
A huge amount has changed in the 14 years since the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Athletes may feel very tempted to speak out. The wider world has been made aware of the Uyghur genocide, involving sterilisation, forced education in detention centres, the disappearance of activists and threats around the world against those who do speak out on the atrocities.
China has also cracked down in Hong Kong, effectively ending the one country, two systems policy. It has introduced the national security law, closed down independent media outlets and jailed political opponents.
Meanwhile, its other abuses – such as those in Tibet – have not gone away. Nor has concern over Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai, who disappeared late last year after she accused a top official of sexual misconduct.
At the Australian Open in January, athletes did use their platform to speak out about Peng Shuai. It would stand to reason the same would happen in Beijing. And yet China is not Australia.
While the rules governing freedom of expression at the Games have been loosened in the wake of athlete protests, Chinese officials have done little to ease concerns over athletes expressing themselves in Beijing. In mid-January, the deputy director of the Beijing organising committee Yang Shu said that “Any expression that is in line with the Olympic spirit I’m sure will be protected.” She then added, “Any behaviour or speech that is against the Olympic spirit, especially against the Chinese laws and regulations, are also subject to certain punishment.”
Basically, speak out and risk prison. It’s a high price to pay.
Then there’s the question of technology. Unlike 2008 when social media was in its infancy, China will be very worried about the potential for protest to reach a much wider audience than before. Anyone making comments on social media from inside the country will be required to communicate with the world through Chinese telecoms companies.
In December, VOA News reported that China has committed to switch off its Great Firewall for athletes and accredited media in the Olympic Village, competition and noncompetition venues, and contracted media hotels.
Just because the Firewall is being relaxed does not mean what athletes say over social media is not being monitored.
One particular concern for athletes at the Games is the requirement to download an app called MY2022 before arriving in China. The app is ostensibly there to maintain a closed loop system relating to Covid measures. However, researchers at Canada’s Citizen Lab says the app is not secure, leading a number of national Olympic committees, including the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, to advise their athletes to leave their personal devices at home.
In a statement shared with athletes, Canada’s national committee wrote, “We’ve reminded all Team Canada members that the Olympic Games present a unique opportunity for cybercrime and recommended that they be extra diligent at Games, including considering leaving personal devices at home, limiting personal information stored on devices brought to the Games, and to practice good cyber-hygiene at all times.”
The app also has a number of other features beyond health, such as AI-powered translation and weather, and real-time messaging and audio. Citizen Lab says it also includes features that allow users to report “politically sensitive” content while the Android version includes a censorship keyword list.
The organisation said, “We discovered a file named illegalwords.txt which contains a list of 2,442 keywords generally considered politically sensitive in China. However, despite its inclusion in the app, we were unable to find any functionality where these keywords were used to perform censorship. It is unclear whether this keyword list is entirely inactive, and, if so, whether the list is inactive intentionally.”
The list includes terms such as Xi Jinping, Tiananmen riot, Dalai Lama, Xinjiang and forced demolition. Citizen Lab says that many of the terms are in Uyghur or Tibetan scripts, something that is “not common” in other censored apps such as WeChat and YY.
It is highly likely that one or more principled athletes will use the Beijing Games to make a stand over Xinjiang, Tibet or Hong Kong. The question is whether, with the world watching, China will dare to take them to task.
CCP censorship extends well beyond the Olympic Games, including the targeting of Chinese minorities overseas. Index has investigated the extent to which the Chinese government is using its technological and economic leverage, combined with cultural and diplomatic networks, to intimidate, silence, and discredit Uyghurs in Europe. The report – China’s Long Arm: How Uyghurs are being Silenced in Europe – will be published on 10 February 2022.
Get a free ticket to the launch event here, titled Banned By Beijing: How can Europe stand up for Uyghurs? After the event, check out our website’s Banned By Beijing page to read the report.”
19 Jan 22 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Turkey, United States
First he fled Xinjiang. Then Kazakhstan. And then Turkey. On 20 January 2021 Serikzhan Bilash, a prominent human rights defender and activist, travelled alone to the United States to seek asylum. He left behind his wife, Laila Adilzahn, and three sons. On 9 January 2022, his family travelled to the Netherlands to seek asylum. But even there troubles have continued to plague them.
Since the Ürümqi protests of 2009, violent and oppressive PRC policies towards the region’s minorities have intensified to what today amounts to genocide. As a native Kazakh in the region, Bilash founded Atajurt Human Rights in 2017. Together with his wife, who is also a native Kazakh born in Almaty, the capital of Kazakhstan, they have recorded, translated and published online thousands of video testimonies of the abuses. Bilash told Index:
“I created the video testimony model because ethnic Kazakhs who lost loved ones in Xinjiang were coming to me to tell their story.”
Many Kazakh families are separated due to some members having fled the region using dual passports [Chinese and Kazakhs]. His organisation has called on the Chinese government to release interned family members, support their relatives in Kazakhstan and empower the voices of survivors.
“Too many awful stories there. We were translating these facts into English for international journalists. So it was big, big work,” Adilzahn said.
This work has not been without risks. On 10 March 2019, Bilash was arrested by the Kazakhstan authorities. He was charged with article 174 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan for “inciting ethnic hatred”. The UN Special Rapporteur, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, has stated article 174 has been used unduly and increasingly to target outspoken civil society leaders to obstruct their work [paragraph 15]. Bilash told Index:
“I never criticised the Kazakhstan government when beginning this work because I knew if I criticised, it would be very dangerous to continue. So collecting the facts about the concentration camps and sending it to the media was the only way to save my people.”
He told survivors the Kazakh government would support them, but instead “because of Chinese pressure, the Kazakhstan government arrested me.”
“Please Save My Husband”, Adilzahn wrote to the international community via her Bitter Winter blog.
Bilash spent six months in prison and under house arrest, before coming to a procedural agreement allowing for his release. The conditions were that he had to plead guilty and promise to refrain from leading a political organisation for the next seven years.
Throughout 2020 Kazakhstan’s human rights situation was worsening.
“When he was released we thought we could stay there in Kazakhstan, and that they couldn’t arrest us, or do something with us. But we were mistaken. They started sending papers and opening new cases against us again. There was no chance to stay,” said Adilzahn.
Bilash said he was harassed by people connected to the government. According to Bilash, it began with carrots: promises of a state fund to manage and the opportunity to “live happily ever after”. He refused, knowing his silence could not be bought. So the sticks were brought out: Bilash received death threats from Kazakh authorities: “What if a truck crashes into your car and kills you, leaving your children crying behind you.” With Dulat Agadil, a close supporter, having already died in custody and his son stabbed shortly after, it was time to leave. On 10 September 2020, they left for Turkey.
Their situation was desperate. Adilzahn told Index: “We obtained a year tourist visa. But we had nothing. We never planned to leave Kazakhstan, or get refugee status from somewhere.” Bilash said Kazahk authorities labelled him a terrorist and froze his bank accounts. When in Turkey, Bilash alleges individuals approaching him monitored his activities on behalf of the Kazakhstan state. Their feelings of insecurity were exacerbated by notable reports of Uyghurs being watched, killed and deported via third countries.
In Turkey, he felt there was no way to continue the work of Atajurt Human Rights. Adilzahn told him, “You have to go, you are the only one who can rescue your nation. If you are deported back to China, your life and nation will be lost. There will be no chance for freedom.” So on 20 January 2021, Bilash left Turkey to seek asylum in the USA. His family remained in Turkey as they didn’t have the documentation needed. Since February 2021, China Aid has been hosting and helping him with the process.
Adilzahn told Index that they “thought he had a politically motivated full case [for asylum], and that we could reunite in America very fast.” But she speculated the pandemic, a Presidential election and issues with illegal immigrants in the USA slowed down Bilash’s asylum and their reunification. This endangered the family.
“A big footprint was left on the patio outside their apartment where Adilzahn lived. And there were reports of Kazakh government security officers searching the Kazakh ex-pat community in Turkey by showing Mr. Bilash’s photo and asking where they could find his family,” Bob Fu, the founder of China Aid, told Index.
Then, in December 2021 Duken Masimkhanuli, president of a pro-Chinese organisation in Kazakhstan, texted Bilash threatening “I will kill you and your three sons.” He was also insulted and threatened by Bakhtiyar Toktaubay, a resident of the Almaty region in Kazakhstan. He sent a video saying “Serikzhan, you left your wife in Turkey and fled to the United States. If you don’t like her, we need her. If she wants me, if I like her, I will spend a night with your wife, I will sleep in your house.”
“By founding Atajurt Human Rights, we have rescued thousands from Xinjiang re-education camps. We fight at one time on two front lines. The first front line is the Chinese Communist Party, and the second is Kazakhstan National Security. I saved so many from re-education camps, but could not save my own family. The American government gave no official support,” Bilash said.
On 5 January 2022, as protesters filled the streets of Kazakhstan, authorities declared a state of emergency. Police fired on protesters. Bilash criticised the “high level [governmental] revenge and mass arrests”. With Kazakh President Tokayev threatening punishment to all involved, and with Bilash’s family still within reach, Adilzahn told Index that it was “too dangerous” to stay in Turkey.
She added: “It seemed my people were winning until the Kazakh authority invited the Russian army in. They were killing people indiscriminately. Too many innocent people dying. Now my people are queuing for the morgues, and my birth city Almaty has been destroyed.” China Aid has since published an article titled “The Xinjiang Model repeated in Kazakhstan”.
Knowing the family had to act quickly Fu developed a plan.
“They decided to send someone to help me, as I am alone. I have three little children, three boys [1, 4 and 6 years old] and luggage. I couldn’t have gone by myself,” Adilzahn told Index. This is when Michael Horowitz, former OMB General Counsel to the Reagan Administration, and his wife Dr Devra Marcus agreed to accompany the family. They have housed many CCP-persecuted individuals, including Bilash.
Michael Horowitz accompanied Laila Adilzahn and her three sons to the Netherlands. Credit: China Aid
On 9 January the six travellers boarded a flight from Istanbul with a layover in the Netherlands, where they are currently being processed as priority asylum seekers.
Despite securing the family’s safety, Horowitz and Marcus were arrested on arriving at Schiphol airport. The Royal Netherlands Marechaussee spokesperson, Mike Hofman told Index, “On Sunday 9 January 2022, we arrested two American citizens for human trafficking. It’s suspected that they accompanied and assisted a family from Kazakhstan from Turkey to the Netherlands to apply for asylum.” He continued, “The American citizens were released from custody on Tuesday, but remain suspects.” On 12 January 2022, they arrived back in the USA.
“Last year alone China Aid rescued 17 endangered people, with six being brought to the Netherlands. We have never had this problem,” said Fu.
“The accusations against Mike and Devra are bizarre and absurd.”
The US Embassy Consular Affair Chief relayed the words of Horowitz and Marcus whilst detained: “It’s one of the great honors of my wife and mine that we have been able to play a role in helping to rescue two human rights heroes […] ”We are not traffickers.”
Michael Polak, Director and Barrister of Justice Abroad, told Index: “It is clear that Serikzhan Bilash and his family have faced intense danger and persecution because of his brave stance speaking up for ethnic Kazakhs stuck in Chinese camps whilst the Kazakh government stayed silent. It is clear that the Bilash family qualify as refugees, and it is great that they are in the Netherlands where they are safe. The arrest of the American nationals is oppressive and disproportionate, and it is hoped that they will not be charged given all the circumstances.”
Today Bilash and his family are now far away from Kazakhstan and indeed China. But they do not feel completely safe. As he tells Index: “Pro-Beijing forces are indeed rampant, everywhere, and are very powerful.”
