15 Sep 2020 | Magazine, Magazine Contents, Volume 49.03 Autumn 2020
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Special report”][vc_column_text]Government hits activists’ online profiles by Arzu Geybulla: Journalists and activists are finding their social media profiles hacked and sometimes deleted in a clear harassment campaign in Azerbaijan
Presiding over bloodshed by Issa Sikiti da Silva: The voice of the opposition is increasingly missing in action as Uganda approaches election day
“Silence got us nowhere. We need to speak up” by Rushan Abbas: One woman’s anguish and outrage over her sister’s disappearance and the millions of others into the concentration camp network in Xinjiang, China
“The idea is to kill journalism” by Bilal Ahmad Pandow: Kashmiri journalists on what it’s like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law
What has the government got to hide? by Jessica Ní Mhainín: The new Irish government has to decide whether to block access to historic child abuse records
Don’t show and tell by Orna Herr: In a bid to avoid offence, TV shows are disappearing from the airwaves. Are we poorer for it?
Restaurants scrub off protest walls by Oliver Farry: All signs of the city’s recent protest past are being removed in Hong Kong’s restaurants, shops and even libraries following the new security law
Closure means no closure by Stefano Pozzebon and Morena Pérez Joachin: The library housing documents on the disappeared of Guatemala’s brutal civil war has been closed and with it the disappeared have disappeared further
The unknown quantity by Alessio Perrone: The Italian government is making efforts to cover up who and how many are trying to cross the Mediterranean
Tracing Turkey’s disappeared by Kaya Genç: A centre looks into the forced disappearances of Kurds in Turkey. Will they find answers or obstacles?
“There’s nobody left to speak” by Somak Ghoshal: First they came for the journalists. Then they came for the lawyers and activists. Who can speak out in today’s India?
Out of sight, but never out of mind by Laura Silvia Battaglia: Our interview with the director of a new documentary about the disappeared in Syria
Blogger flees Tunisia after arrest by Layli Foroudi: After telling a joke, one Tunisian blogger had to flee her country to avoid prison
Becoming tongue-tied by Sally Gimson: China is one country that is forcing people to give up their minority languages. Others have also attempted it
Spain’s lonely voices by Silvia Nortes: We trace the demise of many minority Spanish languages and look at whether others will survive[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Global view”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Why Index has never been needed more by Ruth Smeeth: The world is witnessing an acceleration of illiberalism. We all need to be vigilant[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”In focus”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Ecce homo sovieticus by Andrey Arkhangelsky: Decades after the end of the Soviet Union, Russians are still plagued by totalitarianism. It’s getting worse
“I have suffered death threats and they killed my pet dogs” by Stephen Woodman: Mexican journalists work in war-like conditions. Many are suffering terrible mental illnesses because of it
Nonsense and sensibility by Jemimah Steinfeld: An interview with the bestselling author Dave Eggers about society’s slide into a total surveillance state
Fighting the laws that are silencing journalists by Jessica Ní Mhainín: Vexatious legal threats are part of the European media landscape. We need to take action against them, says a new Index report
2020 by Ben Jennings: Is Alexa censoring the news or is it just that bad? A new cartoon from the award-winning illustrator
Will the centre hold by Michella Oré? They voted for Trump in 2016 because their voices were not being heard. How does middle America feel today?
Who Speaks for Iowa by Jan Fox? The owner of a small-town radio station talks about feeling ignored in the rural USA[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Culture”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Past imperfect by Lisa Appignanesi: The award-winning writer speaks to Rachael Jolley about the inspiration for her new short story, written exclusively for Index, which looks at the idea of ageing, and disappearing memories, and how it plays out during lockdown
The history man by Xue Yiwei: One of China’s most widely read writers discusses a childhood memory of being punished for singing, alongside his short story, published in English for the first time here
Four more years by Mark Frary? Analysis of the upcoming US election looking at the media, plus a new satirical short story by Kaya Genç in which a dog considers Trump’s re-election hopes
Speech patterns by Abraham Zere: The Eritrean writer on escaping one of the world’s most censored countries and now living in Trump’s USA. Plus a new short story of his[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Index around the world”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]New tactics to close down speech by Orna Herr: The news editor at Rappler speaks to Index about legal threats against the media outlet’s CEO, Maria Ressa, plus a report on Index’s recent work[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”End Note “][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Spraying discontent by Jemimah Steinfeld: With museums closed some of the most powerful art is on the streets. Index speaks to the world’s street artists on why it is suddenly a popular form of protest[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Sep 2020 | Opinion, Ruth's blog
One of the things I love about working at Index is the fact that free speech isn’t easy. That every time a new, or even a more established, issue arises you have to think through what it means and how it fits into your own value system.
Should you defend the right of a racist to hide behind their right to free speech? Where is the line between protecting free speech and opposing hate speech?
Free speech underpins our right to protest. However, does that mean if people decide to protest against our free press, that it is legitimate free expression too?
Crucially, if a repressive regime is undermining the right to free speech and attacking every other human right, is a boycott, whether of goods or culture, a legitimate way to protest?
If you believe in the basic human right of free expression – can you and should you boycott? Is your right to protest through boycott or blockades legitimate if the people or items you are boycotting are also simply exercising their right to free speech?
This question has been playing on the team at Index this week.
Every day we discuss what’s happening in China, from the acts of genocide against the Uighur Muslims, to the impact of the national security law in Hong Kong and the latest revelations about the curtailing of human rights in Inner Mongolia.
Every day we despair at what is happening to people who are living under a tyrannical regime that cares little for its citizens and even less for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Which brings me, bizarrely, to the latest Disney film release – Mulan.
Mulan should be an inspirational story, one of a woman whose actions saved a dynasty.
A woman who didn’t want her father to face another conscription, to fight in a war she knew would lead to his death. To protect her family, she pretended to be a man and joined the army and ultimately saved the day.
However, the latest version of the story is rightly proving to be controversial.
The actor playing Mulan has praised the actions of the police against the protestors in Hong Kong – parroting the Chinese Communist Party line straight from Beijing.
The script of the film shows Mulan as Han Chinese and not of Mongolian origin as many believe she was. The views of one actor, as wrong as I believe them to be, are a matter for her. The cultural misrepresentation makes for an inaccurate and to many an offensive film, but these editorial choices do not warrant a boycott of someone’s art.
What might is that Disney shot the film in the Xinjiang province.
Xinjiang is the home of the majority Muslim Uighur community and, now, the site of numerous concentration camps, where women are being forcibly sterilised, piles of human hair are being collected, people are being disappeared and the term re-education has become code for the eradication of any cultural identity that does not subscribe to the Beijing norm.
The term for this is genocide. A mass killing and cultural subjugation waged against millions of people. And it is happening today, right now in Xinjiang on the orders of the Chinese Communist Party.
Disney chose to film their latest Mulan adaptation in Xinjiang and, in doing so, have marginalised the suffering of our fellow human beings. Disney exists to turn fantasies and fairy tales into real life, their raison d’etre is to transport us all to worlds of innocent pleasure. Yet they used their power to thank the public security bureau in the city of Turpan and the “publicity department of CPC Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomy Region Committee” in the end credits.
They thanked the people who are not only complicit but who are seemingly orchestrating acts of genocide. Their power and agency was used not to stand with the oppressed but with the oppressors.
Index doesn’t support boycotts; we were established to publish the work of censored artists and writers – those who are being persecuted. In my opinion that puts us on the side of the Uighurs not Disney.
Disney isn’t persecuted, it isn’t being censored – you can still see Mulan. But choices and actions have consequences. The choices Disney made to ignore the inconvenient truth of a genocide are not immune from scrutiny because their end product is an artistic output. This is a company that should be held accountable for its actions.
Free speech is important; it’s vital. It gives every one of us the right to protest. So, I’m using my right of free speech to say that I think Disney should be ashamed and that I won’t be watching Mulan and I don’t think anyone else should either. I stand with the Uighurs.
8 Sep 2020 | News and features, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has filed an alert to the Council of Europe about a defamation action that is being taken against the Dublin Inquirer, its co-founder Sam Tranum and reporter Laoise Neylon. The Council of Europe has formally notified Ireland of the legal action.
The alert is the first media freedom alert on Ireland since the Council of Europe’s alert platform was launched in 2015. The platform catalogues threats to media freedom in the Council of Europe’s 47 member states.
On the back of the alert, Index on Censorship and seven other media freedom organisations have also written to justice minister, Helen McEntee, and foreign affairs minister, Simon Coveney, to express their concerns over the lawsuit.
“We believe that this legal action is a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (Slapp), intended to intimidate and silence an independent media outlet that is reporting in the public interest,” they wrote.
“The aim of a Slapp is not to succeed in court, but to drain their targets of money, time, and energy in an effort to discourage them from reporting further on a particular person or issue,” the letter explains.
The organisations urge the government to pursue reform of Irish defamation law and to support the creation of anti-Slapps legislation at EU level. “We call on you to get behind such measures in order to bring about concrete protections – including an anti-Slapps directive – for freedom of expression, access to information, and ultimately our democracies.”
Click here to read our report on the rise of Slapps.
Read below the letter to McEntee and Coveney in full:
8 September 2020
Dear Minister Helen McEntee TD, Minister for Justice
Dear Minister Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
Cc: Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU
Index on Censorship, alongside the undersigned press freedom organisations, are writing to raise our concern about legal action that is being taken against the independent news outlet, the Dublin Inquirer, its co-founder Sam Tranum, and its reporter Laoise Neylon.
As outlined in the media freedom alert that was issued by the Council of Europe today, the Dublin Inquirer is facing a defamation lawsuit for an article it published on its website on 26 August, which reported on an eviction that had taken place in Glasnevin the previous week. Tranum, Neylon, and the Dublin Inquirer, were served with summons on 31 August.
We believe that this legal action is a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP), intended to intimidate and silence an independent media outlet that is reporting in the public interest. The aim of a SLAPP is not to succeed in court, but to drain their targets of money, time, and energy in an effort to discourage them from reporting further on a particular person or issue.
The SLAPP that the Dublin Inquirer is facing is just one example of a phenomenon that has become widespread in Europe in recent years: at the time of her death in 2017, Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia had 47 vexatious lawsuits filed against her. This year, the Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists has recorded SLAPPs in Belgium, Malta, France, Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania – and we have reason to believe that these are just the tip of the iceberg.
The lengthy process and extremely high costs associated with defending a defamation case means that Ireland’s draconian defamation laws are an ideal tool with which to threaten and intimidate. Because of the arduousness of exhausting domestic measures, the European Court of Human Rights provides little practical protection to Irish journalists and media outlets. This means that small media outlets, like the Dublin Inquirer, could face closure when targeted with such legal threats and actions.
We therefore urge you, not only to pursue the long overdue reform of Irish defamation law, but to support the creation of robust anti-SLAPPs legislation at EU level. The European Commission has committed to considering suitable anti-SLAPP measures as part of its upcoming European Democracy Action Plan. We call on you to get behind such measures in order to bring about concrete protections – including an anti-SLAPPs directive – for freedom of expression, access to information, and ultimately our democracies.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns. We look forward to your response and would be glad to schedule a meeting to discuss in more detail.
Kind regards,
Index on Censorship
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
Article 19
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
3 Aug 2020 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103857″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Just 37% of UK academics have said they would feel comfortable sitting next to someone who, in relation to transgender rights, advocates gender-critical feminist views, a new report on academic freedom in the UK has revealed. The report by Policy Exchange, released today, is one of the largest representative samples of UK- based academics carried out in recent years. It explores the concern that strongly-held political attitudes are restricting the freedom of those who disagree to research and teach on contested subjects. The report also proposes what might be done, in the form of legislation and other measures, to ensure that universities support intellectual dissent and all lawful speech is protected on campus.
Protecting academic freedoms was one of the founding principles of Index in 1971 and continues to be an area that we are concerned about, so we very much welcome the debate inspired by this report and look forward to hearing from other voices.
Read Index CEO Ruth Smeeth’s foreword for the report:
“It was recently suggested to me that I might have been a target of a little too much free speech in recent years, so it could be viewed as strange that I am so passionate about protecting our collective rights to free speech. But honestly, I have a romantic view of one of our most important human rights.
Free speech should be challenging; it should drive debate and ultimately force all of us to continually reflect on our own views. Free speech should manifest in different ways in different forums. In literature, it should drive our intellectual curiosity about the world around us. In journalism, it should shine a light on the powerful and ensure that the world is informed. And in academia, it should drive debate about the status quo demanding that we continually evolve as a society. It’s only by the guarantee of this core human right that we can ensure that we are the best that we can be, that our arguments are robust and that they can sustain criticism. Simply put, debate makes us better as individuals and as a society, it also makes our arguments more rounded and demands of us the intellectual rigour that drives positive change.
That’s why this publication is so important. Throughout our history, we’ve seen a cyclical approach towards academic freedom, but the reality is that only when our centres of learning are truly independent have we thrived as a society. This research isn’t about determining who is right or wrong, or whose voice is more valuable on any given issue but rather the proposals are designed to ensure that there is still a free and fair debate on our campuses. That the academic freedom that we all should cherish is given the protections it needs. It does the country no good if our educators, our academics, our scholars and most importantly our students feel that they can’t speak or engage without fear of retribution.
We all know that legislation is not a panacea to the chilling effect of what is happening in our public space for anyone that challenges the status quo. It can’t and won’t change the culture on campus but what it can do and what this document squarely aims to do is inform, engage and start a debate about what should be important to us. As a society, we need to have our own national conversation about our core human rights and how they should manifest in the twenty-first century. We need to decide collectively where the lines should be between hate speech and free speech, between academic inquiry and ‘research’ designed to incite, between journalism and purveyors of fake news. This research is an important part of that conversation.”
Please read the report in full here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
