19 Mar 13 | Uncategorized
Forced evictions of India’s marginalised Dalit community in Delhi have been carried out by the country’s government
All over the world today, both in developing and developed states, liberal democracies and less free societies, there are groups who struggle to gain full access to freedom of expression for a wide range of reasons including poverty, discrimination and cultural pressures. While attention is often, rightly, focused on the damaging impact discrimination or poverty can have on people’s lives, the impact such problems have on free expression is rarely addressed.
We are not talking about obvious examples of challenges to freedom of expression where repressive regimes attempt to block, limit and inhibit across a population as a whole. Rather we are looking at cases where in both more and less free societies particular groups face greater barriers to free expression than the wider population. Such groups can often be denied an equal voice, and active and meaningful participation in political processes and wider society. Poverty, discrimination, legal barriers, cultural restrictions, religious customs and other barriers can directly or indirectly block the voices of the already marginalised.
Why is access to freedom of expression important? Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It also underpins most other rights and allows them to flourish. The right to speak your mind freely on important issues in society, access information and hold the powers that be to account, plays a vital role in the healthy development process of any society.
The lack of access to freedom of expression is a problem that particularly affects the already marginalised — that is, minorities facing discrimination both in developed and developing countries, from LGBT people in African countries, to disabled people in Western Europe. While the scale of their struggles varies greatly, the principle is the same: within the context of their society, these groups face greater barriers to freedom of expression than the majority. If they are unable to communicate their ideas, views, worries and needs effectively, means they are often excluded from meaningful participation in society, and from the opportunity to better their own circumstances. In other words, discrimination is one of the core elements of unequal access to freedom of expression.
Access to free expression is also vital as a development goal in its own right. The connection was perhaps most famously put forward by Amartya Sen in his widely cited book — Development as Freedom — where he argued that expansion of freedom is both the primary end and the principal means of development.
It is striking to note the way in which cultural and religious customs are sometimes used to clamp down on various minorities’ rights to expression and assembly in many countries around the world. Human Rights Watch’s latest world report states that “traditional values are often deployed as an excuse to undermine human rights.” One example of this is the caste system still in place in countries including India, Nepal and Pakistan. This is culturally-based discrimination on a major, systematic scale. A significant proportion of Dalits, (lower-caste people, or “untouchables”) are barred from participation in public life and have a limited say in policies that directly affect them. In May 2008, the Dalit community in the Nesda village in the state of Gujarat attempted to stage a protest after being excluded from the government’s development funds allocation, by refusing to fulfil their historic “caste duty” of disposing of dead animals. The dominant caste in the region promptly blocked the protest through a “social boycott”, forbidding any social or economic interaction between Dalits and non-Dalits. This is only one example of Dalit’s being barred from having a say in development matters directly relating to them. When they attempted to stage a peaceful protest, they were only further marginalised, and their weak economic, social and political position further cemented. It’s a vicious cycle.
Another major area where discrimination has a knock-on effect on freedom of expression, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people’s rights across the globe. They are discriminated against for traditional, especially religious, reasons, with countries like Malaysia and Jamaica claiming that homosexuality is simply “not in our culture” when clamping down on LGBT civil rights. The right to express one’s sexuality is an aspect of the right to freedom of expression both in itself (as an expression of identity) but also because in countries where LGBT rights are not respected, the cultural expression of such rights is often also a political act. Cultural events organised by the LGBT community, such as Pride parades, find themselves banned from exercising their right to freedom of assembly and expression, which happened last October in Serbia and Moldova. LGBT-themed art is also often times censored. One example reported by Index took place in Uganda, where a play about a gay man was banned, and its British producer, David Cecil, jailed and later deported. Countries also adopt laws that ban or circumscribe the discussion of homosexualty. In Russia, the Duma recently voted in favor of a draft law to ban “homosexual propaganda”. The amendment, passed by an overwhelming majority, prohibits the “propaganda of homosexuality” (in a practical sense, the discussion of homosexually) to protect children. The bill would in effect seriously curtail the right to freedom of expression of LGBT people.
Full access to freedom of expression is difficult to achieve in the absence of universal education and literacy. Around the world, illiteracy and inadequate (or non-existent) education hits the poorest hardest — both because education is often private, and because in poor countries where it is provided by the state, the standard of education can be low. Women and girls in the developing world are the groups most affected by illiteracy. There are a number of factors contributing to this, including higher levels of poverty among women, with culture and tradition also playing a significant part. There are still a number of societies around the world where it simply is not accepted that girls should receive education at all, and certainly not higher education. While the gender gap in education has been decreasing over time, in 2009, there were still around 35 million girls out of primary education, compared to 31 million boys. Lack of education is still the single biggest contributing factor to high and persistent levels of illiteracy — making it the most basic barrier to freedom of expression. It stops people from effectively participating in society, as it hinders them from being able to read, write and share written information, and thus fully engage with a range of issues or debates. Women make up the majority (64 per cent) of the nearly 800 million illiterate people in the world today. UNHCHR resolution 2003/42 identified this as a contributing factor to constraints on women’s rights to freedom of expression.
As well as the impact of poverty, discrimination and religious and cultural factors, governments and local authorities often put in place more formal mechanisms which result in significant restrictions on access to freedom of expression for minority groups. This can come in the form of restrictions on minority languages, such as Kurdish in Turkey, or barriers to political participation, such as the Bosnian constitutional ban on Jews and Roma running for high office.
Refugees are among the hardest hit people in terms of facing significant and basic restrictions on freedom of expression. A report by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the political rights of refugees stated that they, “…like other aliens, are entitled to the same freedom of expression, association and assembly as citizens.” However, a 2005 report investigating the state of Italian immigration detention centres showed that those detained in Italy were given few opportunities for communication with the outside world. Similarly, allegations of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in Greek detention centres are to be examined by independent experts selected by the UN Human Rights Council later this year. These are only a few examples of fundamental barriers on refugees’ access to fully express themselves. This, of course, cannot be separated from the wider discrimination as outlined above. Refugees constitute a group which often face prejudice and racism. Research from Cardiff University has for instance shown that they do not have the platform to counter the overwhelmingly negative way in which they are portrayed in the UK media. Refugees have universal rights like all other people around the world — states must recognise this and must act to tackle discrimination in all forms.
The barriers to free expression discussed here show why exercising our right to free expression is not as simple as living in a democratic society that broadly respects rights. Barriers that block or inhibit access to freedom of expression exist all over the world, in various forms and to varying degrees. Through being denied a voice, these groups are being denied a fundamental right, are facing barriers to their active participation in society, and, in many cases, are facing additional limits on their ability and opportunity to play a part in improving their own lives. Tackling the barriers from poverty to discrimination to laws that limit access to freedom of expression is vital.
25 Feb 13 | Uncategorized
Elias Kifle is an Ethiopian journalist who runs a news website, the Ethiopian Review, from his exile in the United States. He is a fierce critic of the Ethiopian government, which is among the top ten “jailers” of journalists worldwide, and he has twice been sentenced to life imprisonment by it — once for treason, in 2007, and once for supposed “terrorism”, in 2012.
Yet, in an unlikely twist of fate, the Ethiopian authorities are not the only ones pursuing him in court: Elias Kifle’s name appears with some regularity in the cause lists of the London libel courts. Although his website is run from the US, publishes to an Ethiopian audience on matters concerning Ethiopia, the London courts have warmly welcomed those who wish to sue him for libel. Prime amongst his pursuers has been Ethiopian-born billionaire, Sheikh Mohamed Al-Amoudi.
Mr Al Amoudi, a businessman so keen to preserve his reputation that his Wikipedia entry has been flagged up as inappropriate because it has been edited by people who have a “close connection” with him, has been granted two default judgments against Elias Kifle: a £175,000 award made in 2010, and a £180,000 award made last week.
Being based in the States and lacking the financial means to hire lawyers, Mr Kifle chose not to defend either of these claims. Last week’s case was allowed to proceed because of Mr Al Amoudi’s business activities and reputation among Ethiopians in London, five of whom gave evidence as having read the piece in question; the fact he is a “frequent visitor” to London; and the fact that Mr Al Amoudi’s children were educated in England. The judge, Mr Justice Eady, does not appear to have considered whether it is even remotely feasible for an Ethiopian journalist exiled in the US and who runs a news website on a shoestring budget to obtain the services of libel defence lawyers. Instead he cites Kifle’s rude responses to Al Amoudi’s lawyers as evidence of Kifle’s intent to wage a “campaign of denigration … without ever having to face [Al Amoudi] in court”.
In many ways, there is nothing new about this — readers of this website will be familiar with the Ukrainian website being sued in London by a Ukrainian oligarch over articles published in Ukrainian; and a few years ago my organisation, the Media Legal Defence Initiative, had to call on the pro bono services of media lawyer Mark Stephens to neutralise a London libel threat against the Nepali Times (which, for the avoidance of doubt, publishes from Kathmandu, Nepal). In both these cases, as in Kifle’s case, the claimants could prove some connection to London — not surprising since most of the world’s nationalities are represented there and the publications in question were accessible online.
But in all these cases, the courts have completely failed to appreciate the difficult position of foreign defendants. Judges don’t appreciate the real chilling effect exerted by the financial cost of defending a libel suit in London (estimated in an Oxford University study reporting as more than a hundred times more expensive in London than elsewhere in Europe). Why should a defendant in the US, Nepal or Ukraine be expected to rack up hundreds of thousands in legal fees (assuming for the moment they have that kind of money in the first place) when they are unlikely to recover this even if they win? And is it really that surprising that an exiled journalist twice sentenced to life in prison displays a certain amount of “scorn” for lawyers and legal proceedings (Mr Justice Eady’s disdain of Elias Kifle and his cavalier attitude to Al Amoudi’s lawyers is evident)? Even if they had a choice — which they do not, because they have no money — many defendants in these matters will prefer to suffer a default judgment, even if that means they will not be able to set up business in London in the future, over certain bankruptcy even if they win a case.
Over the last few years, libel tourism cases have continued to pop up despite international outrage. The US has adopted federal legislation barring the enforcement of English libel judgments — and even allowing for counterclaims — and last year, the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation on libel tourism noting that “[p]rocedural costs may discourage defendants from presenting a defence thus leading to default judgments.”
If the Defamation Bill goes through, the end of the phenomenon of libel tourism may be in sight. Under the new regime proposed by the bill, currently in its final stages in Parliament but in danger of disappearing in the Leveson maelstrom, libel proceedings against foreign defendants cannot proceed unless London is “clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement”. Ministers have made it clear that this means judges must take into account the procedural (un)fairness of requiring a foreign defendant to travel thousands of miles and/or engage lawyers they cannot afford. Let us hope judges will apply this in the spirit it is intended — and let’s hope the bill is enacted; it would mean Elias Kifle’s name will appear in the London cause lists no more.
Peter Noorlander is CEO of the Media Legal Defence Initiative, an organisation that defends journalists’ rights and provides legal aid to journalists around the world
28 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
On 24 January, thousands of priceless manuscripts were destroyed in a fire started by Islamist militants leaving Mali. The South African — funded library had been torched by the rebel fighters after French and Malian troops closed in on their escape from the Saharan city of Timbuktu, burning it to the ground. The newly constructed Ahmed Baba Institute housed more than 20,000 scholarly manuscripts and contained fragile documents dating back to the 13th century. The city’s Mayor Halle Ousmane told the press today (28 January) that he was unable to share the extent of the damage to the building and that French and Malian troops were sealing the area today. A Tuareg-led rebellion captured the city from the government on 1 April, torching the home of a member of parliament and the office of the Mayor.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: State security forces have arrested several journalists in Iran ahead of June’s presidential election
The offices of five media publications were raided by Iran’s State Security Forces, it was reported on 27 January. At least ten arrests were made for “cooperating with anti-revolutionary media” after the offices of daily reformist newspapers Bahar, Arman, and Shargh were raided, as well as Aseman magazine headquarters and ILNA news agency offices. Staff were also filmed and documents were confiscated. The prosecutor’s office is expected to release a statement on the raids, alleged to have been a campaign of intimidation ahead of the June presidential elections. Journalists reported to have been arrested include Sassan Aghaei, Emili Amraee, Motahareh Shafiee, Pejman Mousavi, Nasrin Takhayori, Suleiman Mohammadi, Saba Azarpeik, Narges Joudaki, Pourya Alami, Akbar Montajebi and Milad Fadayi-Asl. The specific reason for arrest has yet to be made, but journalists are accused of cooperating with anti-revolutionary Persian language media forces outside of the country, many of whom are living in exile and facing threats from the government.
Twenty-two Nepalese journalists have fled their home in the western district of Dailekh following death threats from the government. The warning from the ruling Unified Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN) came following prime minister Baburam Bhattarai’s visit to Dailakh, where journalists assembled in protest against his decision to call off an investigation into the death of journalist Dekendra Raj Thapa. A colleague of the protestors, Thapa had been kidnapped and murdered four years ago, allegedly by five members of the UCPN. Authorities responded by warning the journalists they could face the same fate as Thapa if they did not disperse, and proceeded to raid the offices of newspaper Hamro Tesro Aankha. The daily publication was forced to cease printing indefinitely, along with weekly Sajha Pratibimba. The radio stations Dhruba Tara and Panchakoshi FM was also forced to stop broadcasting.
An Arabic language newspaper in Sudan was seized by Sudan’s National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) on 22 January. More than 14,000 copies of Al-Sudani were destroyed without a reason. The once independent newspaper was bought by a member of the ruling National Congress Party and now reports the political views of the owner. On 5 January, opposition leaders had met in Ugandan capital Kampala to discuss how to consolidate their power against the country’s government. Intelligence and security services then banned all media outlets from printing anything about the outcome of an agreement signed at the meeting. Last year saw the seizure of more than 20 newspapers, both pro-government and publications critical 0f authorities.
A tree-top anti-abortion protestor who describes himself as an “open-air preacher” has been banned from Washington DC after he attempted to shout down US President Barak Obama during his inauguration ceremony. Rives Grogan was arrested for disorderly conduct on 21 January by Washington police after he scaled a tree and shouted repeatedly over the president. Local judge Karen Howze ordered on 22 January that he be arrested should he step foot into the country’s capital before his court appearance on 25 February. Grogan, who said he has been arrested around 30 times in 19 years, said that he had never been banned from an entire city before, claiming the move violated his first amendment rights. Prosecutors said Grogan was arrested for breaking tree branches during his climb, endangering the lives of himself and others.
25 Jun 10 | Index Index, minipost
New Delhi’s Central Board of Film Classification has refused to certify the documentary Flames of the Snow. The body stated that any film which romanticises and promotes the violence of the Maoist groups in Nepal is inappropriate viewing for the general public. The feature documents over 200 years of relations between Nepalese rebels and the Indian establishment. The director of the film, Ashish Srivastava and its Kathmandu-based producers, Group for International Solidarity, intend to launch a campaign to oppose the banning. Another film entitled, Village of Widows, which features Benazir Bhutto vehemently criticising the Indian state and the burning of an Indian flag in Kashmir has also been censored by the authorities.
