As protests continue in many cities across Turkey, the reactions of government, police and media have shown up only too clearly to a wider audience – domestic and international – the increasingly problematic nature of Turkish democracy, and its growing authoritarian tendencies. Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes writes
Police brutality in response to the mainly peaceful protesters has been rightly criticised. The failure of mainstream Turkish media to cover the protests from the start – choosing instead cooking programmes and other non-contentious fare – has surprised some, and also being strongly criticised. If anyone inside or outside Turkey had not paid attention to growing censorship, including self-censorship, of Turkish media, it has now been widely exposed for all to see. Yet comments from some, including the European Union, have been surprisingly limited – focusing mainly on police brutality and not the wider human rights and democracy issues.
While some commentators rashly labelled the protests a ‘Turkish spring’, those who have followed Erdogan’s AKP government in its move from promoting a number of key democratic reforms ten years ago to showing a more authoritarian side in the last few years were clear that these authoritarian tendencies are underpinning this outburst of discontent. As Amberin Zaman writes: “My overall impression, and it’s commonly shared, is that the Taksim Park project has morphed into a vehicle for popular resentment against Erdogan’s increasingly dismissive and authoritarian ways”.
As she concisely puts it: “He is a democratically elected leader who has been acting in an increasingly undemocratic way.”
While Erdogan successfully stood up to ‘soft’ and anti-democratic attempts to undermine his government – the ‘e-coup’ in 2007, the attempted ‘ judicial coup’ in 2008 – subsequent years have seen increasing numbers of journalists jailed, considerable political pressure on media outlets, with journalists and editors widely self-censoring, and many being dismissed for expressing opinions freely in their writing.
Index highlighted this censorship in shortlisting Turkish journalists for its media freedom award this year. The Turkish media themselves have now highlighted it in their failure to fully cover these widespread protests.
Those who have been promoting Turkey as a role model for ‘Arab Spring’ countries like Egypt and Tunisia, or who have been holding back on criticising Turkey’s increasing attacks on free speech for reasons of diplomacy and real politik, now must surely face up to the more difficult reality that Turkey is a country that imprisons more journalists today than Iran or China. The European Union’s foreign policy supremo Cathy Ashton did, with a delay, come out to condemn disproportionate use of force by the police.
But the EU should have addressed sooner and more strongly the clear and growing attacks on media freedom in Turkey – and Ashton has, even now, yet to come out strongly on this in the context of the protests. The EU has rather little influence in Turkey compared to a decade ago when membership talks were about to start – these talks have now faltered and slowed. But the EU does insist all candidate countries meet its ‘Copenhagen Criteria’ that say candidates must be democracies who respect the rule of law and human rights. Back in 2004, when the Union’s leaders agreed to start talks Turkey was said to “sufficiently meet” those criteria.
It is no longer clear, given its deliberate creation of media censorship, and the brutality of police in the face of mass protests, that Turkey does meet those criteria. If the EU stands for human rights in its neighbourhood, surely it should make a much stronger, robust condemnation of Turkey’s growing anti-democratic tendencies and its attacks on freedom of expression.
Five members of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) are scheduled to appear before the country’s Anti-Terrorism court in Damascus on 19 May. Three of the activists, SCM’s head Mazen Darwish, blogger Hussein Gharir, and activist Hani Zaitani have been held in prison since February 2012, when Syrian security forces attacked and raided the organisation’s offices. Abdel Rahman Hamada and Mansour Omari were conditionally released earlier this year. Syria’s Air Force Intelligence has accused the five activists of “publicising terrorist acts”, under the country’s Anti-Terrorism law.
A group of 19 international organisations today called for the release of Zaitani, Gharir, and Darwish, and for the charges against all five to be dropped. If convicted, they face up to 15 years in prison. According to a statement released today, Syria’s Justice Minister earlier this month promised the release of SCM’s three jailed members — in addition to 69 other jailed activists.
SCM member Maha Assabalani, who was avoided being imprisoned during the raid, wrote about her colleagues for Index last year. She said that her colleagues are in prison for fighting for freedom of expression — and that they “risked their life fighting for real change.” She also said that Darwish regularly told the organisation’s staff that “there are not enough prisons for the free word.”
In the last week, Bahrain’s treatment of its citizens and their right to free expression has been repeatedly in the news. Sara Yasin reports on a spate of developments that raise questions about the Bahraini government’s commitment to free speech.
Blogger and activist Ali Abdulemam has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. Abdulemam’s two years in hiding began shortly after the start of Bahrain’s political unrest in February 2011. He was sentenced in absentia to fifteen years in prison on charges of attempting to overthrow the monarchy.
Abdulemam is the prominent founder of Bahrain Online, a site that created an online space to criticise and discuss the country’s regime in 1998. Initially, he wrote anonymously, but he began to write in his own name in 2001. Public dissent in Bahrain comes at a price: the blogger was first arrested in 2005 and then once more in 2010.
News of Abdulemam’s heroic escape did not amuse Bahrain’s government:
Ali Abdulemam was not tried in court for exercising his right to express his opinions. Rather, he was tried for inciting and encouraging continuous violent attacks against police officers. Abdulemam is the founder of Bahrain Online, a website that has repeatedly been used to incite hatred, including through the spreading of false and inflammatory rumors.
The statement goes on to say that the country “respects the right of its citizens to express their opinion”, but makes a distinction between expressing an opinion and “engaging in and encouraging violence.”
Back in 2010, Abdulemam was jailed, tortured, and accused of being a part of a “terrorist network.” The real threat he posed to the state, as fellow activist Ala’a Shehabi put it last year, was that “his forum offered dissidents a voice.”
So what does “incitement” look like in Bahrain? For documenting a protest on Twitter last December, Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) member Said Yousif, was jailed and charged with “spreading false news.” According to the country’s laws, “the dissemination of the false news must amount to incitement to violence.” As Human Rights Watch’s Middle East director, Sarah Lea Witson put it:
If Bahraini officials believe that an activist is inciting violence by tweeting a picture of an injured demonstrator, then it’s clear that all the human rights sessions they’ve attended have been wasted.
The jailed head of the organisation, Nabeel Rajab, is currently serving a two year sentence for organising “illegal protests.” BCHR released a statement today expressing concerns that Rajab has been transferred to solitary confinement. He has been unreachable since relaying to his wife an account of young political prisoners being tortured earlier this week. Rajab was requesting a visit from the International Committee of the Red Cross, to document the case.
Still, Bahrain insists that freedom of expression is something that it upholds — in fact, it has gone so far as prosecuting individuals for supposedly abusing it. Just yesterday, year-long sentences were handed to six Twitter users for making posts insulting Bahrain’s King Hamad. For hanging a Bahraini flag from his truck during protests in 2011, a man was handed a three-month jail sentence today.
Looks like it might be time for Bahrain to reevaluate how it understands freedom of expression.
Today’s impressively short Queen’s Speech contained two nuggets of interest for Index readers. Firstly, there was the mention of intellectual propety:
A further Bill will make it easier for businesses to protect their intellectual property
The debate over copyright and free speech has been fraught, with widespread criticism of governmental attempts to create laws on copyright on the web. (Read Brian Pellot on World Intellectual Property Day here here and Joe McNamee’s “Getting Copyright Right” here.)
This is something the government will have to treat very carefully, and the consultation should be fascinating.
Further in, the speech addressed crime in cyberspace:
In relation to the problem of matching internet protocol addresses, my government will bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace.
The Government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to protect the public and ensure national security. These agencies use communications data – the who, when, where and how of a communication, but not its content – to investigate and prosecute serious crimes. Communications data helps to keep the public safe: it is used by the police to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and to save lives. This is not about indiscriminately accessing internet data of innocent members of the public.
As the way in which we communicate changes, the data needed by the police is no longer always available. While they can, where necessary and proportionate to do so as part of a specific criminal investigation, identify who has made a telephone call (or
sent an SMS text message), and when and where, they cannot always do the same for communications sent over the internet, such as email, internet telephony or instant messaging. This is because communications service providers do not retain
all the relevant data.
When communicating over the Internet, people are allocated an Internet Protocol (IP) address. However, these addresses are generally shared between a number of people. In order to know who has actually sent an email or made a Skype call, the
police need to know who used a certain IP address at a given point in time. Without this, if a suspect used the internet to communicate instead of making a phone call, it may not be possible for the police to identify them.
The Government is looking at ways of addressing this issue with CSPs. It may involve legislation.
Eagle-eyed observers will note that this echoes what Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told LBC listeners on 25 April, after announcing that the dreaded Communications Data Bill (aka the “Snooper’s Charter”) was to be dropped. Clegg suggested then that IP addresses could be assigned to each individual device.
As I wrote at the time, “New proposals for monitoring and surveillance will no doubt emerge, and will be subject to the same scrutiny and criticism as the previous attempts to establish a Snooper’s Charter.”
Well, here we are.
Padraig Reidy is senior writer for Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy
