08 Jun 17 | Bahrain, Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]International press freedom organisations and local Bahraini groups are among fifteen campaigners who today raised alarm over the suspension of Bahrain‘s only independent newspaper, Al Wasat, which has been barred from publishing for four days now. The rights groups which today wrote letters addressed to ten countries including the UK, state Bahrain is “effectively silencing the media in Bahrain and violating the right to freedom of expression.”
The letters, signed by Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists, Article 19, Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy and ten others wrote to states urging them to “publicly call on the Government of Bahrain to allow Al Wasat to resume publication immediately.”
The letter is addressed to the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Italy and France – who all have embassies in Bahrain – as well as Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the European Union.
The Ministry of Information Affairs suspended Al Wasat, the only independent newspaper in Bahrain, on 4 June 2017, effectively silencing the media in Bahrain and violating the right to freedom of expression. Al Wasat’s suspension is the latest in a recent spate of reprisals against independent media and civil society actors, including journalists, writers, and human rights defenders. The state-run Bahrain News Agency claims that the paper is “spreading what would stir divisions within the community and undermine the Kingdom of Bahrain’s relations with other countries.” Al Wasat was suspended due to the publication of an opinion article regarding widespread protests in Morocco, a source in the newspaper told BIRD.
Politics in the region has developed quickly since the suspension of the newspaper. On Monday, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates closed diplomatic relations with neighbour Qatar and barred all air, sea and land travel. Yesterday, two Bahrainis were sentenced to death, bring the total up to 15 on death row.
Prior to the suspension of Al Wasat, Bahrain was already counted among the 20 most restrictive countries for press globally, with Reporters Without Borders ranking Bahrain as 164 out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index.
This is the latest in an escalated crackdown on independent civil society. On 23 May, Bahraini security forces raided the village of Duraz, killing five protesters and arrested 286. It is the deadliest incident since protests began in 2011. On 31 May, the last major opposition society, Wa’ad, was dissolved and their assets confiscated. Wa’ad is appealing the decision. The letter continues, “In this context, journalists in Bahrain have expressed to NGOs serious concerns that the newspaper will not be allowed to resume publication.”
Al Wasat, established 2002, is the only independent newspaper in Bahrain. Its editor Mansoor Al-Jamri is winner of the CPJ International Press Freedom Award in 2011 and winner of the Peace Through Media Award 2012. It has been suspended in previous years, in April 2011 and August 2015. In January 2017, the newspaper’s website and social media were suspended for two days. it In 2011, Abdulkarim Al-Fakhrawi, one of the paper’s founders, was tortured to death in police custody.
Comments
Melody Patry, Head of Advocacy, Index on Censorship: “The silencing of Al Wasat – the only independent voice in Bahrain’s media – underscores the dismal state of human rights in the country. The Bahraini government must allow free and unfettered access to information.”
Cat Lucas, Writers at Risk Programme Manager, English PEN: “By silencing the only independent newspaper in the country, the Bahraini authorities are sending a clear message that dissenting voices will not be tolerated. Our governments must send an equally clear message that the suspension of Al Wasat is unacceptable and that a plurality of voices in the media is an essential part of any democracy.”
“Bahrain is experiencing a severe crackdown on freedom of expression. Now is the time for the international community to speak up to defend fundamental human rights, in particular, the right to freedom of expression, which is crucial for promoting stable, pluralistic democratic societies,” said Saloua Ghazouni, Director of ARTICLE 19’s Middle East and North Africa regional office.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1496907779680-4f997749-0326-5″ taxonomies=”716″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
21 Mar 17 | Digital Freedom, Mapping Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Each week, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project verifies threats, violations and limitations faced by the media throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Here are recent reports that give us cause for concern.
Five journalists were detained in Orsha on 12 March after covering a protest against a new law that would tax unemployed people labeled as “parasites”, Radio Svaboda reported.
Radio Svaboda’s Halina Abakunchyk, photographer for BelaPAN Andrei Shaulyuha and blogger Anastasia Pilyuhina were detained after the rally along with demonstrators and taken to Orsha district police department.
Freelance journalists working for TV channel Belsat, Alyaksandr Barazenka and Katsyaryna Bahvalava, went to the police station to get a comment from a detained opposition activist, only to be detained as well. Pending trial they spent the night in jail.
Abakunchyk and Bakhvalava were ordered to pay fines. Abakunchyk was accused of participating in an unsanctioned mass event under Aryicle 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences and fined approximately €280. Bakhvalava was accused of illegal production and distribution of media products and disobeying the police under Article 22.9 and Article 23.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences and fined approximately €340.
Up to 18 journalists and bloggers were arrested while covering the protests, IFJ reported.
Conservative MP Jean-François Mancel filed a proposed law to the National Assembly on 10 March which intends “to remove protection of the confidentiality of journalistic sources if protection of the public interest justifies it“.
The proposed law reads: “Contrary to what is generally said by journalists and their representatives, the systematic protection of sources’ confidentiality and the will to further reinforce it seriously compromises the respect of individual freedoms and the protection of civilians against acts of aggression from the media.”
Mancel accused journalists who have covered allegations of fraud involving conservative candidate François Fillon of going after the candidate unfairly, for instance on his Twitter account.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row equal_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1490021682242{background-color: #d5473c !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}” el_class=”text_white”][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1490021461628{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/MMF_report_2016_WEB-1-1A.jpg?id=85872) !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Hakan Büyük, a Turkish-Dutch journalist for the newspaper Zaman Vandaag has been receiving death threats on Twitter, news portal Villamedia reported on 13 March.
The threats began after a diplomatic row between Turkey and The Netherlands led to violent pro-Erdogan protests in the streets of Rotterdam. Earlier, Dutch authorities banned a Turkish minister from campaigning for an upcoming Turkish referendum.
Büyük received at least ten threats in Turkish, one of which read: “We will not arrest you, you will be killed.” He has filed charges with the police.
Zaman Vandaag was founded by Gulen sympathisers, who are being blamed for the failed coup in Turkey in the summer of 2016.
Unidentified protesters assaulted and verbally harassed two different TV crews during a pro-opposition protest on 10 March in Skopje, news agency META reported.
Hristijan Banevski, a reporter for private broadcaster TV 24, was “firstly verbally attacked and then hit in the head with a stick holding a flag during the protest in Skopje”.
That same night, a TV Telma crew was verbally harassed while interviewing protesters. Without giving much detail, the channel reported that their journalists were cursed at.
Local journalists’ associations have called upon the Macedonian institutions to take appropriate measures and to come out in defence of the journalists, news agency META reported.
President of the Association of Journalists of Macedonia (ZNM), Naser Selmani, underlined that what is worrying is that public officials, including representatives of state institutions, participated in these coordinated attacks.
In the last four years, according to ZNM’s data, 44 attacks against journalists were reported in Macedonia. Out of these, 19 occurred in 2016.
Officers from the Russian Security Service (FSB) detained reporter Igor Zalyubovin and photographer Vladimir Yarotsky for the Moscow-based independent news magazine Snob on 7 March, the publication said in a statement. The journalists were in the apartment they rented to report on daily life in the city of Svetogorsk.
An article was planned as a response to Svetogorsk Mayor Sergey Davydov’s 1 March claim that there were no homosexuals in the city, and that it was a “city without sin,” according to press reports.
On 7 March, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement saying Russian security services should stop harassing and obstructing journalists and should allow them to work unimpeded.
To visit Svetogorsk requires either a Schengen visa to enter via Finland, an invitation from a local resident, or a special permit from the FSB, according to 2014 legislation. Snob’s editor-in-chief, Yegor Mostovshikov, told the news website Meduza today that his outlet did not apply for a permit from the FSB “because it takes up to 30 days to get it.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1490021029215-ef5a3b8c-778c-2″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
06 Jan 17 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Section 40 is part of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which deals with a whole range of issues but also implemented some of the recommendations contained in the Leveson Report into phone hacking by newspapers. Index on Censorship strongly opposes the introduction of section 40.
Section 40 addresses the awarding of costs in a case where someone makes a legal claim against a publisher of “news-related material”. The provision means that any publisher who is not a member of an approved regulator at the time of the claim can be forced to pay both sides’ cost in a court case — even if they win.
What is wrong with Section 40?
Section 40 does not protect “ordinary” individuals as its advocates claim. It protects the rich and powerful and is a gift to the corrupt and conniving to silence investigative journalists – particularly media outfits that don’t have very deep pockets. Special interest investigative news outlets could shy away from exposing government officials engaged in bribery, for example, because – even if the publication is right – they could end up paying both sides’ legal costs if the story is challenged by a claimant. This could bankrupt a small organisation and would make many investigative journalists think twice about publishing a story for fear of being hit with crippling costs from any claim. The role of the press is to hold the powerful to account and they need to be able to do this without the fear of being punished for doing so.
But there is a recognised regulator — Impress — why not join that?
Index — which is itself a small publisher as well as a freedom of expression campaign group – will not join any regulator that has to have the approval of a state body. The Press Recognition Panel – set up by an arcane political mechanism called a Royal Charter – is the body that approves any press regulator and we do not believe it is sufficiently separate from politicians and political interests. Keeping Section 40 on statute effectively forces publishers to join an approved regulator even if they do not believe it represents their best interests or those of the public.
The Royal Charter isn’t really state involvement, is it?
Yes it is. Its supporters claim that the Press Recognition Panel, established by something called a Royal Charter, is at arm’s length from the government. It’s true that changes to the Royal Charter require a two thirds majority from both houses but after the recent manoeuvring we have seen from the House of Lords to introduce a version of Section 40 by the back door, and given all the unprecedented political upheavals worldwide over the past year, it’s not at all beyond the bounds of possibility that it could happen. Index on Censorship has always opposed the Royal Charter and we will continue to do so. We also campaign against government control of the media across the world as a principle.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” align=”right”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]What’s wrong with state involvement?
It’s a fundamental principle of a free press – and a free society – that if journalists or anyone else wants to ensure politicians are held to account then they must be entirely free from political control.
But some of your patrons are supporters of Hacked Off, which supports section 40.
Yes. And on this point we disagree with them. This includes people like the highly respected journalist Harold Evans. But many people also agree with our position, including human rights expert Lord Lester who has called the Royal Charter a “steamroller to crack a nut”.
But didn’t we need new laws?
No. The elements that the Leveson Inquiry was set up to investigate — contempt of court, phone tapping, bribing the police — were already all illegal. We had all those laws.
Would you join IPSO, the regulator to which the majority of the press belong and which is not approved?
No. We think that as a free expression organisation, albeit with a publishing arm, it is important that we stand outside the various vested interests of different parts of the media.
Isn’t this all just about protecting the big commercial interests of the press and allowing big newspapers to print lies?
No. The publications most likely to be affected by Section 40 are small publications like Index on Censorship or local newspapers, like the Maidenhead Advertiser, that refuse to join a government-recognised regulator. Many local newspaper editors are very worried about the impact of this. Section 40 does not protect individuals from an unchecked, irresponsible press. That is achieved by making redress cheaper and faster by mechanisms such as early arbitration and mediation that avoid courts altogether, and by making sure any self-regulator applies a clear and robust code of conduct that holds papers clearly to account for any mistakes.
But broadcasters are regulated, why not the press?
Broadcast regulation seems largely a relic of a bygone era when viewers had a choice between one or two providers and therefore the risk of skewed information loomed large. Government regulation of any media which has the power to stop stories being broadcast or otherwise published is a principle that Index opposes.
Should there be Leveson 2 to investigate the relationships between press and police?
We see absolutely no need for Leveson 2 – Leveson 1 already exceeded quite considerably its remit and investigating the relationship between the police and press seems no longer the most important concern when considering the print media. Leveson was already outmoded when it began and the inquiry’s recommendations fail to address the largely unregulated realm of online news.
Who is doing press regulation right?
Sadly there aren’t any models that work perfectly. Finland has an excellent model of self-regulation and is ranked at the top of the world’s press freedom indices but even there this is backed by statute, which has the taint of political involvement that Index on Censorship would be wary of. We monitor threats to press freedom in detail in Europe and neighbouring countries and the picture is deteriorating rapidly. Countries such as Poland and Hungary are introducing more stringent controls on the press that threaten the media’s independence. You only have to look to what’s happening to journalists in Turkey to see how easily democracies can extinguish press freedom by arguing it’s in the interests of national security.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1488189869194-a6a69648-dcf8-0″ taxonomies=”8993″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
09 Dec 16 | Europe and Central Asia, Hungary, Mapping Media Freedom, News and features, Russia, Turkey, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
25 November: The Finnish prime minister, Juha Sipilä, pressured the national broadcasting company Yle by claiming they had published false information about him and acted unprofessionally.
Sipilä sent 20 emails to two journalists working at Yle who published an article observing his connection to government investment in Terrafame, a mining company which Sipilä’s family has a 5% share.
Three journalists as Yle, who have chosen to remain anonymous, told Suomen Kuvalehti that at least two Sipilä stories were censored after receiving the emails. The Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman is investigating complaints that the prime minister has limited press freedom.
29 November: A motion to stop the sale of the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express at a Plymouth University shop was passed by the Plymouth University Student Union Executive Council.
The University of Plymouth Students’ Union-run shop will no longer carry these news outlets. “Whilst we believe that freedom of expression and speech are inalienable human rights… a number of British tabloids are known to express hateful views,” the union stated.
According to the union, the publications “demonise certain groups in society, such as immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, disabled people, the LGBTIQA+ community, Muslims, Black and Asian communities.”
The union further explained: “UPSU is a safe space in which any abusive language or behaviour is not tolerated. UPSU opposes hatred, discrimination…Because of these very values that we hold and we are proud of, we believe that it is unethical for us to profit out of the sale of hateful, non-factual and anti-scientific media platforms.”
These newspapers will not be banned from Plymouth University, students will still be able to access them online or from alternative stores.
30 November: A former presenter for the now closed pro-Kurdish outlet Özgür Gün TV, Müjgan Ekin, was abducted on 24 October, and there is still no news of her whereabouts.
While on her way to a friend’s house, Ekin was dragged into a police car by individuals who posed as police officers. There were multiple eyewitness accounts of the incident. The police officers told Ekin’s family that she was detained for being a suspected suicide bomber.
According the the Human Rights Association there doesn’t seem to be any official report of Ekin’s suspected detention.
There is a history of disappearances in Turkey’s Kurdish provinces: these disappearances peaked in the 1990s when Turkey’s security forces allegedly carried out extrajudicial executions.
1 December: István Tiborcz, the son-in-law for the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has requested through his lawyer that news outlet 444.hu takes down a video of him and to issue him a written apology because they used the footage without his consent.
Hír TV originally aired the video on 28 November. It was filmed from a distance and shows a Hír TV reporter speaking to Tiborcz on the street, asking him questions about his role in a company involved in real estate. Tiborcz responds with: “Why do you care?” He then proceeds to tell the reporter she is beautiful, and asks if she is married.
Tiborcz claims the footage is a violation of his privacy.
2 December: Dozhd cameraperson, Sergey Petrov, was detained on 2 December while investigating property illegally built on a nature preserve in the northern Caucasus.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, Putin’s personal chef, allegedly owns the property. While working on a report covering the property, Petrov and several environmental activists were detained in Kabardinka village by private security guards in a wooded area. According to Petrov’s wife, Irina Kovalenko, they were not trespassing on Prigozhin’s property.
The security guards deleted the information Petrov had gathered on his flash drive. Afterwards, Petrov and the activists were taken to the police station to give an explanation. They were later released.
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1481284570656-21bf3167-fdb5-8″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
