26 Oct 18 | Campaigns -- Featured, Saudi Arabia, Statements
Saudi journalist, Global Opinions columnist for the Washington Post, and former editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel Jamal Khashoggi offers remarks during POMED’s “Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia: A Deeper Look”. March 21, 2018, Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), Washington, DC.
Recognising the fundamental right to express our views, free from repression, we the undersigned civil society organisations call on the international community, including the United Nations, multilateral and regional institutions as well as democratic governments committed to the freedom of expression, to take immediate steps to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for grave human rights violations. The murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on 2 October is only one of many gross and systematic violations committed by the Saudi authorities inside and outside the country. As the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists approaches on 2 November, we strongly echo calls for an independent investigation into Khashoggi’s murder, in order to hold those responsible to account.
This case, coupled with the rampant arrests of human rights defenders, including journalists, scholars and women’s rights activists; internal repression; the potential imposition of the death penalty on demonstrators; and the findings of the UN Group of Eminent Experts report which concluded that the Coalition, led by Saudi Arabia, have committed acts that may amount to international crimes in Yemen, all demonstrate Saudi Arabia’s record of gross and systematic human rights violations. Therefore, our organisations further urge the UN General Assembly to suspend Saudi Arabia from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), in accordance with operative paragraph 8 of the General Assembly resolution 60/251.
Saudi Arabia has never had a reputation for tolerance and respect for human rights, but there were hopes that as Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman rolled out his economic plan (Vision 2030), and finally allowed women to drive, there would be a loosening of restrictions on women’s rights, and freedom of expression and assembly. However, prior to the driving ban being lifted in June, women human rights defenders received phone calls warning them to remain silent. The Saudi authorities then arrested dozens of women’s rights defenders (both female and male) who had been campaigning against the driving ban. The Saudi authorities’ crackdown against all forms of dissent has continued to this day.
Khashoggi criticised the arrests of human rights defenders and the reform plans of the Crown Prince, and was living in self-imposed exile in the US. On 2 October 2018, Khashoggi went to the Consulate in Istanbul with his fiancée to complete some paperwork, but never came out. Turkish officials soon claimed there was evidence that he was murdered in the Consulate, but Saudi officials did not admit he had been murdered until more than two weeks later.
It was not until two days later, on 20 October, that the Saudi public prosecution’s investigation released findings confirming that Khashoggi was deceased. Their reports suggested that he died after a “fist fight” in the Consulate, and that 18 Saudi nationals have been detained. King Salman also issued royal decrees terminating the jobs of high-level officials, including Saud Al-Qahtani, an advisor to the royal court, and Ahmed Assiri, deputy head of the General Intelligence Presidency. The public prosecution continues its investigation, but the body has not been found.
Given the contradictory reports from Saudi authorities, it is essential that an independent international investigation is undertaken.
On 18 October, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) called on Turkey to request that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres establish a UN investigation into the extrajudicial execution of Khashoggi.
On 15 October 2018, David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, and Dr. Agnès Callamard, the UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions, called for “an independent investigation that could produce credible findings and provide the basis for clear punitive actions, including the possible expulsion of diplomatic personnel, removal from UN bodies (such as the Human Rights Council), travel bans, economic consequences, reparations and the possibility of trials in third states.”
We note that on 27 September, Saudi Arabia joined consensus at the UN HRC as it adopted a new resolution on the safety of journalists (A/HRC/Res/39/6). We note the calls in this resolution for “impartial, thorough, independent and effective investigations into all alleged violence, threats and attacks against journalists and media workers falling within their jurisdiction, to bring perpetrators, including those who command, conspire to commit, aid and abet or cover up such crimes to justice.” It also “[u]rges the immediate and unconditional release of journalists and media workers who have been arbitrarily arrested or arbitrarily detained.”
Khashoggi had contributed to the Washington Post and Al-Watan newspaper, and was editor-in-chief of the short-lived Al-Arab News Channel in 2015. He left Saudi Arabia in 2017 as arrests of journalists, writers, human rights defenders and activists began to escalate. In his last column published in the Washington Post, he criticised the sentencing of journalist Saleh Al-Shehi to five years in prison in February 2018. Al-Shehi is one of more than 15 journalists and bloggers who have been arrested in Saudi Arabia since September 2017, bringing the total of those in prison to 29, according to RSF, while up to 100 human rights defenders and possibly thousands of activists are also in detention according to the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and Saudi partners including ALQST. Many of those detained in the past year had publicly criticised reform plans related to Vision 2030, noting that women would not achieve economic equality merely by driving.
Another recent target of the crackdown on dissent is prominent economist Essam Al-Zamel, an entrepreneur known for his writing about the need for economic reform. On 1 October 2018, the Specialised Criminal Court (SCC) held a secret session during which the Public Prosecution charged Al-Zamel with violating the Anti Cyber Crime Law by “mobilising his followers on social media.” Al-Zamel criticised Vision 2030 on social media, where he had one million followers. Al-Zamel was arrested on 12 September 2017 at the same time as many other rights defenders and reformists.
The current unprecedented targeting of women human rights defenders started in January 2018 with the arrest of Noha Al-Balawi due to her online activism in support of social media campaigns for women’s rights such as (#Right2Drive) or against the male guardianship system (#IAmMyOwnGuardian). Even before that, on 10 November 2017, the SCC in Riyadh sentenced Naimah Al-Matrod to six years in jail for her online activism.
The wave of arrests continued after the March session of the HRC and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) published its recommendations on Saudi Arabia. Loujain Al-Hathloul, was abducted in the Emirates and brought to Saudi Arabia against her will on 15 May 2018; followed by the arrest of Dr. Eman Al-Nafjan, founder and author of the Saudiwoman’s Weblog, who had previously protested the driving ban; and Aziza Al-Yousef, a prominent campaigner for women’s rights.
Four other women’s human rights defenders who were arrested in May 2018 include Dr. Aisha Al-Manae, Dr. Hessa Al-Sheikh and Dr. Madeha Al-Ajroush, who took part in the first women’s protest movement demanding the right to drive in 1990; and Walaa Al-Shubbar, a young activist well-known for her campaigning against the male guardianship system. They are all academics and professionals who supported women’s rights and provided assistance to survivors of gender-based violence. While they have since been released, all four women are believed to be still facing charges.
On 6 June 2018, journalist, editor, TV producer and woman human rights defender Nouf Abdulaziz was arrested after a raid on her home. Following her arrest, Mayya Al-Zahrani published a letter from Abdulaziz, and was then arrested herself on 9 June 2018, for publishing the letter.
On 27 June 2018, Hatoon Al-Fassi, a renowned scholar, and associate professor of women’s history at King Saud University, was arrested. She has long been advocating for the right of women to participate in municipal elections and to drive, and was one of the first women to drive the day the ban was lifted on 24 June 2018.
Twice in June, UN special procedures called for the release of women’s rights defenders. On 27 June 2018, nine independent UN experts stated, “In stark contrast with this celebrated moment of liberation for Saudi women, women’s human rights defenders have been arrested and detained on a wide scale across the country, which is truly worrying and perhaps a better indication of the Government’s approach to women’s human rights.” They emphasised that women human rights defenders “face compounded stigma, not only because of their work as human rights defenders, but also because of discrimination on gender grounds.”
Nevertheless, the arrests of women human rights defenders continued with Samar Badawi and Nassima Al-Sadah on 30 July 2018. They are being held in solitary confinement in a prison that is controlled by the Presidency of State Security, an apparatus established by order of King Salman on 20 July 2017. Badawi’s brother Raif Badawi is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for his online advocacy, and her former husband Waleed Abu Al-Khair, is serving a 15-year sentence. Abu Al-Khair, Abdullah Al-Hamid, and Mohammad Fahad Al-Qahtani (the latter two are founding members of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association – ACPRA) were jointly awarded the Right Livelihood Award in September 2018. Yet all of them remain behind bars.
Relatives of other human rights defenders have also been arrested. Amal Al-Harbi, the wife of prominent activist Fowzan Al-Harbi, was arrested by State Security on 30 July 2018 while on the seaside with her children in Jeddah. Her husband is another jailed member of ACPRA. Alarmingly, in October 2018, travel bans were imposed against the families of several women’s rights defenders, such as Aziza Al-Yousef, Loujain Al-Hathloul and Eman Al-Nafjan.
In another alarming development, at a trial before the SCC on 6 August 2018, the Public Prosecutor called for the death penalty for Israa Al-Ghomgam who was arrested with her husband Mousa Al-Hashim on 6 December 2015 after they participated in peaceful protests in Al-Qatif. Al-Ghomgam was charged under Article 6 of the Cybercrime Act of 2007 in connection with social media activity, as well as other charges related to the protests. If sentenced to death, she would be the first woman facing the death penalty on charges related to her activism. The next hearing is scheduled for 28 October 2018.
The SCC, which was set up to try terrorism cases in 2008, has mostly been used to prosecute human rights defenders and critics of the government in order to keep a tight rein on civil society.
On 12 October 2018, UN experts again called for the release of all detained women human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia. They expressed particular concern about Al-Ghomgam’s trial before the SCC, saying, “Measures aimed at countering terrorism should never be used to suppress or curtail human rights work.” It is clear that the Saudi authorities have not acted on the concerns raised by the special procedures – this non-cooperation further brings their membership on the HRC into disrepute.
Many of the human rights defenders arrested this year have been held in incommunicado detention with no access to families or lawyers. Some of them have been labelled traitors and subjected to smear campaigns in the state media, escalating the possibility they will be sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Rather than guaranteeing a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders at a time of planned economic reform, the Saudi authorities have chosen to escalate their repression against any dissenting voices.
Our organisations reiterate our calls to the international community to hold Saudi Arabia accountable and not allow impunity for human rights violations to prevail.
We call on the international community, and in particular the UN, to:
- Take action to ensure there is an international, impartial, prompt, thorough, independent and effective investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi;
- Ensure Saudi Arabia be held accountable for the murder of Khashoggi and for its systematic violations of human rights;
- Call a Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the recent wave of arrests and attacks against journalists, human rights defenders and other dissenting voices in Saudi Arabia;
- Take action at the UN General Assembly to suspend Saudi Arabia’s membership of the Human Rights Council; and
- Urge the government of Saudi Arabia to implement the below recommendations.
We call on the authorities in Saudi Arabia to:
- Produce the body of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi and invite independent international experts to oversee investigations into his murder; cooperate with all UN mechanisms; and ensure that those responsible for his death, including those who hold command responsibility, are brought to justice;
- Immediately quash the convictions of all human rights defenders, including women and men advocating for gender equality, and drop all charges against them;
- Immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders, writers, journalists and prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia whose detention is a result of their peaceful and legitimate work in the promotion and protection of human rights including women’s rights;
- Institute a moratorium on the death penalty; including as punishment for crimes related to the exercise of rights to freedom of opinion and expression, and peaceful assembly;
- Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders and journalists in Saudi Arabia are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities and public interest reporting without fear of reprisal;
- Immediately implement the recommendations made by the UN Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen; and
- Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and bring all national laws limiting the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association into compliance with international human rights standards.
Signed,
Access Now
Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) – France
Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) – Germany
Al-Marsad – Syria
ALQST for Human Rights
ALTSEAN-Burma
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHRS) – Jordan
Amman Forum for Human Rights
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Armanshahr/OPEN ASIA
ARTICLE 19
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Asociación Libre de Abogadas y Abogados (ALA)
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
Association malienne des droits de l’Homme (AMDH)
Association mauritanienne des droits de l’Homme (AMDH)
Association nigérienne pour la défense des droits de l’Homme (ANDDH)
Association of Tunisian Women for Research on Development
Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID)
Awan Awareness and Capacity Development Organization
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law – Tajikistan
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)
Canadian Center for International Justice
Caucasus Civil Initiatives Center (CCIC)
Center for Civil Liberties – Ukraine
Center for Prisoners’ Rights
Center for the Protection of Human Rights “Kylym Shamy” – Kazakhstan
Centre oecuménique des droits de l’Homme (CEDH) – Haïti
Centro de Políticas Públicas y Derechos Humanos (EQUIDAD) – Perú
Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH) – Guatemala
Citizen Center for Press Freedom
Citizens’ Watch – Russia
CIVICUS
Civil Society Institute (CSI) – Armenia
Code Pink
Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic
Comité de acción jurídica (CAJ) – Argentina
Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU) – Ecuador
Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos – Dominican Republic
Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) -Northern Ireland
Committee to Protect Journalists
Committee for Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia
Damascus Center for Human Rights in Syria
Danish PEN
DITSHWANELO – The Botswana Center for Human Rights
Dutch League for Human Rights (LvRM)
Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center – Azerbaijan
English PEN
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR)
FIDH within the framework of the Observatory for the protection of human rights defenders
Finnish League for Human Rights
Freedom Now
Front Line Defenders
Fundación regional de asesoría en derechos humanos (INREDH) – Ecuador
Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) – Uganda
Global Voices Advox
Groupe LOTUS (RDC)
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Hellenic League for Human Rights (HLHR)
Human Rights Association (IHD) – Turkey
Human Rights Center (HRCIDC) – Georgia
Human Rights Center “Viasna” – Belarus
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
Human Rights Concern (HRCE) – Eritrea
Human Rights in China
Human Rights Center Memorial
Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan”
Human Rights Sentinel
IFEX
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression (IFoX) – Turkey
Institut Alternatives et Initiatives citoyennes pour la Gouvernance démocratique (I-AICGD) – DR Congo
International Center for Supporting Rights and Freedoms (ICSRF) – Switzerland
Internationale Liga für Menscherechte
International Human Rights Organisation “Fiery Hearts Club” – Uzbekistan
International Legal Initiative (ILI) – Kazakhstan
International Media Support (IMS)
International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR)
International Press Institute
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Internet Law Reform and Dialogue (iLaw)
Iraqi Association for the Defense of Journalists’ Rights
Iraqi Hope Association
Italian Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Justice for Iran
Karapatan – Philippines
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Khiam Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture
KontraS
Latvian Human Rights Committee
Lao Movement for Human Rights
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada
League for the Defense of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)
Legal Clinic “Adilet” – Kyrgyzstan
Ligue algérienne de défense des droits de l’Homme (LADDH)
Ligue centrafricaine des droits de l’Homme
Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH) Belgium
Ligue des Electeurs (LE) – DRC
Ligue ivoirienne des droits de l’Homme (LIDHO)
Ligue sénégalaise des droits humains (LSDH)
Ligue tchadienne des droits de l’Homme (LTDH)
Maison des droits de l’Homme (MDHC) – Cameroon
Maharat Foundation
MARUAH – Singapore
Middle East and North Africa Media Monitoring Observatory
Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers, International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL)
Movimento Nacional de Direitos Humanos (MNDH) – Brasil
Muslims for Progressive Values
Mwatana Organization for Human Rights
National Syndicate of Tunisian Journalists
No Peace Without Justice
Norwegian PEN
Odhikar
Open Azerbaijan Initiative
Organisation marocaine des droits humains (OMDH)
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
People’s Watch
PEN America
PEN Canada
PEN International
PEN Lebanon
PEN Québec
Promo-LEX – Moldova
Public Foundation – Human Rights Center “Kylym Shamy” – Kyrgyzstan
Rafto Foundation for Human Rights
RAW in WAR (Reach All Women in War)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Right Livelihood Award Foundation
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Sahrawi Media Observatory to document human rights violations
SALAM for Democracy and Human Rights (SALAM DHR)
Scholars at Risk (SAR)
Sham Center for Democratic Studies and Human Rights in Syria
Sisters’ Arab Forum for Human Rights (SAF) – Yemen
Solicitors International Human Rights Group
Syrian Center for Legal Studies and Research
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Tanmiea – Iraq
Tunisian Association to Defend Academic Values
Tunisian Association to Defend Individual Rights
Tunisian Association of Democratic Women
Tunis Center for Press Freedom
Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights
Tunisian League to Defend Human Rights
Tunisian Organization against Torture
Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights (UAF)
Urnammu
Vietnam Committee on Human Rights
Vigdis Freedom Foundation
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition
Women’s Center for Culture & Art – United Kingdom
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) within the framework of the Observatory for the protection of human rights defenders
Yemen Center for Human Rights
Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZimRights)
17Shubat For Human Rights
19 Oct 18 | Global Journalist (Spanish), Journalism Toolbox Spanish, Spain
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”101644″ img_size=”large” add_caption=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Puede que en Estados Unidos estén aún acostumbrándose a sus “fake news“, pero los bielorrusos llevan años lidiando con la táctica de las noticias fabricadas, relata Andrei Aliaksandrau.”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Puede que en Estados Unidos estén aún acostumbrándose a sus “fake news”, pero los bielorrusos llevan años lidiando con la táctica de las noticias fabricadas, relata Andrei Aliaksandrau.
En Bielorrusia,inventar noticias no es una novedad. Una historia que consistía en imágenes espantosas de manifestantes armados con cócteles molotov y otros objetos recorrió en abril los canales de televisión y periódicos del estado. Los manifestantes, afirmaban los reporteros, pertenecían a la Legión Blanca, cuyos miembros presuntamente buscaban encender en Minsk una revuelta similar a la de las protestas del Euromaidán, que se extendieron por toda Ucrania en 2013 y 2014 y contribuyeron a la crisis de Crimea.
Curiosamente, los productores y reporteros de estos vídeos y artículos eran anónimos. No había ni títulos ni firmas, ni tampoco pruebas de que la Legión Blanca, que existió en su día, hubiera llevado a cabo operación alguna en los últimos años. También es curioso que ni la policía ni las fuerzas de seguridad quisieran responder a las preguntas de periodistas y ciudadanos sobre el caso.
Resulta que la historia era una invención con envoltorio de noticia, un fragmento retorcido de la realidad, emitido para sembrar el miedo y el pánico en la sociedad. El mensaje era: No salgáis a las calles a protestar. Quienes lo hacen socavan la paz y la estabilidad.
Se trata de una táctica habitual que lleva años dándose en Bielorrusia, donde las noticias reales se reprimen y proliferan las falsas. Es una estrategia de uso muy extendido en este momento, siendo 2017 testigo de las protestas más intensas que ha visto el país en años, y a las que el gobierno ha respondido con brutalidad.
Bastante próspera bajo el régimen soviético, Bielorrusia sufrió un declive financiero tras la caída de la URSS. En medio del desconcierto económico y político, Alexander Lukashenko llegó al poder. El presidente sigue aferrado a él 23 años después, debido en gran medida a un estricto control de los medios de comunicación. Los ataques a la prensa, a blogueros, a escritores y a periodistas independientes se perpetúan al mismo tiempo que continúan las actividades de la extensa máquina propagandística del estado.
Los informativos de los canales nacionales de televisión —y no hay ningún canal nacional que no sea propiedad del estado— siguen un patrón simple a la par que persuasivo: aquí va una noticia sobre el presidente; aquí está saludando a un embajador extranjero y dando un discurso sobre el papel especial que desempeña Bielorrusia en la estabilidad y la paz mundial; aquí está reunido con el ministro del interior y haciendo una declaración sobre la importancia de preservar la estabilidad y la paz en la sociedad; aquí está gritando al consejo de ministros que tienen que hacer lo que haga falta para seguir sus sabias ideas por el bien del pueblo (por no hablar de la paz y la estabilidad); aquí está visitando la fábrica de una pequeña ciudad hablándoles a los obreros cual padre bondadoso, diciéndoles que él proveerá.
Tras media hora con cosas así, le llega el turno a un caleidoscopio de imágenes del resto del mundo: proyectiles cayendo sobre Ucrania; bombas destruyendo un hospital sirio; algún presidente raro haciendo declaraciones absurdas al otro lado del océano; un terrorista haciendo estallar otra ciudad europea; refugiados, inundaciones, recesiones, gobiernos que colapsan.
Y, después, una historia de niños felices en una guardería bielorrusa. Más imágenes de un país pacífico guiado por un sabio líder que se erige como el último bastión de felicidad, la última isla de estabilidad en un mundo violento.
Pero hay otros tipos de programas en la televisión nacional. Los emiten cuando las autoridades empiezan a notar que la imagen de “paz y estabilidad” que proyectan contradice a la otra realidad: la que la gente ve en las calles y en el trabajo, en las tiendas y en el transporte público, en hospitales y escuelas; la realidad de la vida fuera de la matriz de la propaganda del estado.
A comienzos de 2017, miles de personas de todo el país salieron a la calle a manifestarse. Las protestas fueron provocadas por un nuevo decreto presidencial, el tercero, que multa a quienes no puedan demostrar tener un trabajo o fuente de ingresos oficial. Lo han apodado el decreto “del parásito social”. Existe un antiguo término soviético, tuniejadcy, cuyo significado oficial es “parásito”: el “parasitismo” estaba considerado delito en la era soviética, pues se esperaba que todo el mundo trabajase para construir “la sociedad utópica comunista”. He aquí una innovación bielorrusa: en lugar de subvencionar a los parados, el gobierno ha decidido multarles.
El decreto solo fue el detonante. La verdadera razón de las protestas es la profunda crisis económica que asola el país. Resulta que la “estabilidad” bielorrusa se trata en realidad de un estado de coma. Nuestra economía, fundamentada en la industria, es herencia de la era soviética y nunca ha pasado por reformas. Estas habrían conllevado la privatización, la modificación de leyes para asegurar garantías al capital, la independencia del poder judicial y un parlamento electo en condiciones, en lugar de uno puesto a dedo por el presidente. Estos pasos, de haberlos seguido, habrían socavado profundamente el régimen autoritario.
Así pues, la economía del país ha llegado hasta hoy sin mayores alteraciones. Durante casi dos décadas se benefició del petróleo y el gas que llegaban baratos de Rusia, así como de préstamos que el Kremlin se podía permitir debido a los altos precios del petróleo y a la necesidad de contar con un aliado cerca. La relación se ha enfriado desde entonces, en parte por la oposición de Bielorrusia a la anexión rusa de Crimea.
La gente comenzaba a notar las dificultades económicas, especialmente en las ciudades pequeñas. Entonces fue cuando llegó el impuesto del “parásito social”, que desató las protestas. La gente salió a las calles de Bielorrusia por primera vez desde 2011; en algunos pueblos, no lo hacían desde la década de 1990.
Las movilizaciones recibieron una dura respuesta. La policía arrestó a cientos de personas, a pesar de la naturaleza totalmente pacífica de las manifestaciones. Durante los acontecimientos de Minsk de marzo de 2017, las fuerzas antidisturbios actuaron con brutalidad y arrestaron a alrededor de mil personas. Algunas de ellas eran transeúntes detenidos por error. Otros, periodistas con acreditación en regla.
Aliaksandr Barazenka, cámara del canal Belsat TV, fue detenido durante las protestas del 25 de marzo de 2017 en Minsk. Existe un vídeo de él gritando “¡Soy periodista!” a matones uniformados, que lo agarran y lo meten a rastras en un furgón policial. Más tarde, en el juzgado, los agentes antidisturbios dijeron que Barazenka había estado jurando en público. El juez no prestó la más mínima atención a las claras discrepancias entre sus declaraciones. Barazenka fue condenado a 15 días de detención administrativa, que pasó en huelga de hambre en un centro de detención. Se dieron muchos más ejemplos como estos durante la primavera de 2017. Pero estas historias nunca salen por la televisión estatal.
Pese a todo, aún quedan medios independientes, de un modo u otro, en Bielorrusia. Todavía hay algún periódico no perteneciente al estado, alguna publicación digital que muestra lo que está pasando. Hay blogueros y redes sociales. De hecho, cuando los medios nacionales transmitieron el montaje de los cócteles molotov, emergió un vídeo en internet que revelaba que no había ni policía ni supuestos delincuentes, solo una furgoneta y un puñado de operadores de cámara de la televisión del estado.
Por mucho que se estén contando las historias del periodista Barazenka y de otros manifestantes detenidos, desgraciadamente la realidad delirante y violenta de la televisión nacional prevalece. “Las palabras de los medios están devaluadas. A las autoridades ya no les interesa lo que sabemos ni lo que pensamos sobre ellas”, afirmaba Viktar Martinovich, escritor bielorruso de éxito, en el Belarus Journal. “Ya no les hace falta público. Están solos. Creen que son lo bastante poderosos, que son eternos. Y nos faltan las palabras para demostrar que se equivocan”.
Aquí hay uno que cree que encontraremos las palabras.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Andrei Aliaksandraues un periodista afincado en Minsk, Bielorrusia. Es editor del Belarus Journal.
Este artículo fue publicado en la revista Index on Censorship en verano de 2017.
Traducción de Arrate Hidalgo.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Oct 18 | Artistic Freedom, News and features, Risks, Rights and Reputations
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”97076″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Agnieszka Kolek is curator and co-founder of Passion for Freedom, an annual competition exhibition of by artists facing censorship worldwide. In February 2015, Kolek survived the terrorist attack in Copenhagen, targeting the panel discussion she appeared in alongside Swedish artist Lars Vilks. Later that year in London, the Passion for Freedom 2015 exhibition at Mall Galleries, London, hit the headlines when a work Isis Threaten Sylvania by Mimsy was removed by the curators on the advice of the police. They had no choice because they couldn’t pay the £36,000 demanded by the police to guarantee security of the exhibition.
JF: How does your experience of the Danish police compare to the British police?
AK: The panel discussion — Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Speech — was organised by the Lars Vilks Committee with the full support of the police. This was only a month after the Charlie Hebdo attack, but there was no question that the discussion should go ahead. There were two plain-clothed police officers, two uniformed police and then two special service officers responsible for Lars, who has 24-hour police protection. Police checked bags as the audience came in. When the attack happened — the Danish filmmaker Finn Nørgaard, one of the guests, was shot outside the venue and died on the pavement — the two special service officers took Lars to safety. We know that after an attack on freedom of speech the next target is Jews – it happened with Charlie Hebdo and it happened in Copenhagen when the same gunman attacked a bat mitzvah party in the evening, killing the security guard. Danes feel very bad that they didn’t anticipate this pattern and there was a lot of blaming of the police for this, but they did their best considering the circumstances. I think there has to be more legal power give to the police to extinguish the sources of the extremism, and its results. When you already have flames it is harder to put it, instead you have to prevent the fire from starting.
In London in 2015 it was very different. The police wanted to determine what artworks could go on show, and even the artistic value of exhibited works, showing an indirect form of censorship claiming it was “for your own good – security”. Police intelligence identified “serious concerns” regarding the “potentially inflammatory content” of Mimsy’s work and for this reason “advised” us to remove the work or pay protection money at £6,000 a day. We were completely shocked. Out of all the works in the exhibition, we would never have thought that they would pick this one out. We asked for more information about the “serious concerns”, especially because we wanted to know if there was a threat to Mimsy herself. They didn’t give us any more information. They wanted to place blame on the festival or its artists for causing problems, rather than protecting the space for art to show the suffering of people around the world and the lack of freedom to openly discuss it. While we tried to fundraise for our own protection, we were threatened with more works being withdrawn. Art cannot be controlled by the police – not in London, which for hundreds of years is a symbol of democracy and freedom. Not in the creative capital of Europe where artists flock from all over the world.
JF: But in Copenhagen two people lost their lives – you could have lost yours. How do you reconcile the loss of life with the pursuit of freedom?
AK: It is not easy to answer as I am not treating others’ and my own life lightly. Behind each individual there is a unique person, unique life story and to cut it short for the supposedly abstract ideal of free speech and expression might seem reckless. It is not. Again and again we learn how giving concessions to those who want to restrict freedoms of speech allows the darkness not only to enter our home but also our hearts. Not resisting it at early stages causes our societies to change beyond recognition.
I was invited to the Copenhagen event way ahead, so after the Charlie Hebdo attack, the chair got in touch with me to say she would understand in view of the heightened security risk, if I chose not to come. So I thought long and hard about it and said I will have to die someday, and I know I will look back at that this moment and I will remember the choice I made and it will be important.
Passion for Freedom is a very effective tool for assessing how much freedom there is in society. Artists cannot be easily controlled. In their inner core they are idealists. We stand with them giving them space and time to express themselves. Freedom will prevail despite political and corporate pressure to censor and restrict open debate. We are its guardians.
JF: How have the experiences of 2015 impacted on how you approach this year’s exhibition?
AK: The commitment and the conviction are still there. But we are not clear where we stand, because there is no clear definition of what is appropriate or what is inflammatory. It is a shifting ground. In the past, we created the space to fully exhibit work that had been censored elsewhere by a curator or a gallery owner. Now we are in the situation where the state, through the arm of the police, imposes this pre-emptive self-censorship on you. Since the censorship incident, we cannot guarantee artists that they will be able to exhibit/perform during a festival talking about freedom. Over the years there has been a number of artists who requested to be exhibited under pseudonyms (as often their lives are threatened in the UK or back in their home countries). Can we guarantee that the police will not arrest them? Until now, we could guarantee it to them. Since 2015 we are not sure that is the case. My approach is not to have any preconceived idea of how it will go with the police this time. We will still try to be open and have a dialogue in the belief that the police are still there to protect us and it is still a democratic country. I will be honest – we are also treating it as a kind of testing ground. Let’s see if this is still a democratic country or is it just on paper?
The artistic community in the United States and Australia is shocked by the police’s censorious attitude to arts in London. There are groups of people who decided to open Passion for Freedom branch offices in New York and Sydney to ensure that British censorship is being exposed. And in case freedom is completely extinguished in the UK they can continue the important work to give artists the platform to exhibit their works and debate important issues in our societies. And if we discover that there is even less freedom than in 2015, we are considering moving this exhibition to Poland because there is more freedom there. This is on the cards, we are already discussing it.
JF: Do you think Passion for Freedom exhibition represents a security risk?
AK: The way it is being framed in the media it looks like we are troublemakers and we are asking for it. I see it another way – we are representing the majority of society that wants to ask questions, to solve problems and to move forward together. Instead of giving in to a minority that wants to use violence and threats as a way to push forward their own agenda. I think it is in the interests of any society to make sure there is the space for difficult conversations because it moves away from creating the situation where the only way to solve problems is violence. You need to allow people to have this space and art is a wonderful tool to do that, without falling for propaganda, or just favouring one way of looking at things over another. Here you can have different voices, at different volumes, and different issues at play.
JF: The 2015 terror attack in Copenhagen targeted Swedish artist Lars Vilks and those who support him. Why do you think it is important for an artist to be free to deliberately insult and offend people’s religious beliefs?
AK: The world is a much more complex place than the newspaper headlines would like us to believe. Lars Vilks was invited to participate in an art exhibition on the theme “The Dog in Art” that was to be held in the small town of Tällerud in Värmland. Vilks submitted three pen and ink drawings on A4 paper depicting Muhammad as a roundabout dog. At this time, Vilks was already participating with drawings of Muhammad in another exhibition in Vestfossen, Norway, on the theme “Oh, My God”. Vilks has stated that his original intention with the drawings was to “examine the political correctness within the boundaries of the art community”. It is not a secret that Sweden is known for vehemently criticising the United States and Israel, whereas political Islam and its influence on non-Muslim communities are rarely questioned.
Artists practising various forms of art, whether poetry, drama, drawing or film, have been challenging those who hold power for millennia.
Few kings, warlords or dictators allowed criticism or satire of themselves. The blasphemy laws were in place not to protect God but those who claimed to be his only representatives on earth. Nowadays, the same seems to be disguised in the cloak of hurt feelings and delicate egos. Artists are idealistic visionaries. They cannot hold themselves back pretending that they are blind to what is in front of their eyes. Lack of open discussion stifles our development as societies. Fear of reprisal and death cripples the human spirit. Those who cower under the whip hoping to appease and remove the threat are actually risking the fate of a slave and subordinating to dehumanised serfdom their true nature – that of a free man.
JF: Why do you have this passion for freedom?
AK: Behind the Iron Curtain we naively believed that not only was the West this Land of Milk and Honey of material goods, we were also certain that there was freedom here, that people would value and protect it. So moving here, first you discover that everything is not so perfect materially, but then the bigger eye-opener is that there is always someone who wants to take freedom away and if you don’t stand up tall in society this threat is always present. I don’t think you can continue just exercising freedom of speech without appreciating what it has brought to us over the long years when previous generations were fighting for it, and though it is not ideal, the state we are in is much better than it used to be.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”103159″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Passion for Freedom Art Festival
10th-anniversary edition, 1 – 12 October 2018, London
The Royal Opera Arcade Gallery & La Galleria Pall Mall
Royal Opera Arcade, 5b Pall Mall, London SW1Y 4UY
The 10th-anniversary edition of internationally renowned Passion for Freedom Art Festival will open in London on 1 – 12 October 2018 at its new location – the Royal Opera Arcade Gallery & La Galleria Pall Mall. The exhibition showcases uncensored art from around the world, promoting human rights, highlighting injustice and celebrating artistic freedom.
Passion for Freedom was founded in 2008 and over the past ten years grew into an international network of artists, journalists, filmmakers and activists striving to celebrate and protect freedom of expression. We have displayed more than 600 artworks from 55 countries, including China, Iran and Venezuela.
The competition attracts much worldwide attention. This year, we received more than 200 submissions out of which we will exhibit over 50 shortlisted artists. From Venezuela to Turkey to the United Kingdom, those artists ceaselessly expose the restraints on freedom of speech, expression, and information in their countries. Altogether, we will display 100 such artworks during the festival. Passion for Freedom covers painting, photography, sculpture, performance, video, as well as authors, filmmakers and journalists.
Competitors will be judged by a prestigious selection panel. Winners will be announced on the 6th of October at the Gala Award Night.
This year’s judges are:
Andrew Stahl (United Kingdom)
Francisco Laranjo (Portugal)
Gary Hill (USA)
Lee Weinberg, PhD (Israel)
Mehdi-Georges Lahlou (Belgium)
Miriam Elia (United Kingdom)
Mychael Barratt PRE (Canada/United Kingdom)
This year we are thrilled to announce a Special Theo Van Gogh Award awarded in honour of his courage and contributions to freedom of expression.
Furthermore, we have invited a select group of special guest artists to display their latest works.
Passion for Freedom 2018 Guest Artists are:
Agata Strzalka (Poland)
Andreea Medar (Romania)
Emma Elliott (United Kingdom)
Jana Zimova (Czech Republic/Germany)
Mimsy (United Kingdom)
Öncü Hrant Gültekin (Turkey/Germany)
Oscar Olivares (Venezuela)
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/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:1539249597657-189331c4-e1af-0″ taxonomies=”15471, 8884″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
28 Sep 18 | Journalism Toolbox Spanish, Spain
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Los periodistas mexicanos son objeto de amenazas por parte de un gobierno corrupto y cárteles violentos, y no siempre pueden confiar en sus compañeros de oficio. Duncan Tucker informa.
“][vc_single_image image=”97006″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]«Espero que el gobierno no se deje llevar por la tentación autoritaria de bloquear el acceso a internet y arrestar activistas», contaba el bloguero y activista mexicano Alberto Escorcia a la revista de Index on Censorship.
Escorcia acababa de recibir una serie de amenazas por un artículo que había escrito sobre el reciente descontento social en el país. Las amenazas se agravaron al día siguiente. Invadido por una sensación de ahogo y desprotección, comenzó a planear su huida del país.
Son muchas las personas preocupadas por el estado de la libertad de expresión en México. Una economía estancada, una moneda en caída libre, una sangrienta guerra antinarco sin final a la vista y un presidente extremadamente impopular, sumados a la administración beligerante de Donald Trump recién instalada en EE.UU. al otro lado de la frontera, llevan todo el año generando cada vez más presión.
Una de las tensiones principales es el propio presidente de México. Los cuatro años que lleva Enrique Peña Nieto en el cargo han traído un parco crecimiento económico. También se está dando un repunte de la violencia y los escándalos por corrupción. En enero de este año, el índice de popularidad del presidente se desplomó hasta el 12%.
Y lo que es peor: los periodistas que han intentado informar sobre el presidente y sus políticas han sufrido duras represalias. 2017 comenzó con agitadas protestas en respuesta al anuncio de Peña Nieto de que habría una subida del 20% a los precios de la gasolina. Días de manifestaciones, barricadas, saqueos y enfrentamientos con la policía dejaron al menos seis muertos y más de 1.500 arrestos. El Comité para la Protección de los Periodistas ha informado que los agentes de policía golpearon, amenazaron o detuvieron temporalmente a un mínimo de 19 reporteros que cubrían la agitación en los estados norteños de Coahuila y Baja California.
No solo se silencian noticias; también se las inventan. La histeria colectiva se adueñó de la Ciudad de México a consecuencia de las legiones de botsde Twitter que incitaron a la violencia y difundieron información falsa sobre saqueos, cosa que provocó el cierre temporal de unos 20.000 comercios.
«Nunca he visto la ciudad así», confesó Escorcia por teléfono desde su casa en la capital. «Hay más policía de lo normal. Hay helicópteros volando sobre nosotros a todas horas y se escuchan sirenas constantemente. Aunque no ha habido saqueos en esta zona de la ciudad, la gente piensa que está ocurriendo por todas partes».
Escorcia, que lleva siete años investigando el uso de bots en México, cree que las cuentas de Twitter falsas se utilizaron para sembrar el miedo y desacreditar y distraer la atención de las protestas legítimas contra la subida de la gasolina y la corrupción del gobierno. Afirmó haber identificado al menos 485 cuentas que incitaban constantemente a la gente a «saquear Walmart».
«Lo primero que hacen es llamar a la gente a saquear tiendas, luego exigen que los saqueadores sean castigados y llaman a que se eche mano del ejército», explicó Escorcia. «Es un tema muy delicado, porque podría llevar a llamamientos a favor de la censura en internet o a arrestar activistas», añadió, apuntando que la actual administración ya ha pasado por un intento fallido de establecer legislación que bloquee el acceso a internet durante «acontecimientos críticos para la seguridad pública o nacional».
Días después de que el hashtag de «saquear Walmart» se hiciera viral, Benito Rodríguez, un hacker radicado en España, contó al periódico mexicano El Financieroque le habían pagado para convertirlo en trending topic. Rodríguez explicó que a veces trabaja para el gobierno mexicano y admitió que «tal vez» fuera un partido político el que le pagara para incitar al saqueo.
La administración de Peña Nieto lleva mucho tiempo bajo sospecha de utilizar bots con objetivos políticos. En una entrevista con Bloomberg el año pasado, el hacker colombiano Andrés Sepúlveda afirmaba que, desde 2005, lo habían contratado para influir en el resultado de nueve elecciones presidenciales de Latinoamérica. Entre ellas, las elecciones mexicanas de 2012, en las que aseguraba que el equipo de Peña Nieto le pagó para hackear las comunicaciones de sus dos mayores rivales y liderar un ejército de 30.000 bots para manipular lostrending topicsde Twitter y atacar a los otros aspirantes. La oficina del presidente publicó un comunicado en el que negaba toda relación con Sepúlveda.
Los periodistas de México sufren también la amenaza de la violencia de los cárteles. Mientras investigaba Narcoperiodismo, su último libro, Javier Valdez —fundador del periódico Ríodoce— se dio cuenta que hoy día es muy habitual que en las ruedas de prensa de los periódicos locales haya infiltrados chivatos y espías de los cárteles. «El periodismo serio y ético es muy importante en tiempos conflictivos, pero desgraciadamente hay periodistas trabajando con los narcos», cuenta. «Esto ha complicado mucho nuestra labor. Ahora tenemos que protegernos de los policías, de los narcos y hasta de otros reporteros».
Valdez conoce demasiado bien los peligros de incordiar al poder. Ríodoce tiene su sede en Sinaloa, un estado en una situación sofocante cuya economía gravita alrededor del narcotráfico. «En 2009 alguien arrojó una granada contra la oficina de Ríodoce, pero solo ocasionó daños materiales», explica. «He recibido llamadas telefónicas ordenándome que dejase de investigar ciertos asesinatos o jefes narcos. He tenido que omitir información importante porque podrían matar a mi familia si la mencionaba. Algunas de mis fuentes han sido asesinadas o están desaparecidas… Al gobierno le da absolutamente igual. No hace nada por protegernos. Se han dado muchos casos y se siguen dando».
Pese a los problemas comunes a los que se enfrentan, Valdez lamenta que haya poco sentido de la solidaridad entre los periodistas mexicanos, así como escaso apoyo de la sociedad en general. Además, ahora que México se pone en marcha de cara a las elecciones presidenciales del año que viene y continúan sus problemas económicos, teme que la presión sobre los periodistas no haga más que intensificarse, cosa que acarreará graves consecuencias para el país.
«Los riesgos para la sociedad y la democracia son extremadamente graves. El periodismo puede impactar enormemente en la democracia y en la conciencia social, pero cuando trabajamos bajo tantas amenazas, nuestro trabajo nunca es tan completo como debería», advierte Valdez.
Si no se da un cambio drástico, México y sus periodistas se enfrentan a un futuro aún más sombrío, añade: «No veo una sociedad que se plante junto a sus periodistas y los proteja. En Ríodoce no tenemos ningún tipo de ayuda empresarial para financiar proyectos. Si terminásemos en bancarrota y tuviésemos que cerrar, nadie haría nada [por ayudar]. No tenemos aliados. Necesitamos más publicidad, suscripciones y apoyo moral, pero estamos solos. No sobreviviremos mucho más tiempo en estas circunstancias».
Escorcia, que se enfrenta a una situación igualmente difícil, comparte su sentido de la urgencia. Sin embargo, se mantiene desafiante, como en el tuit que publicó tras las últimas amenazas recibidas: «Este es nuestro país, nuestro hogar, nuestro futuro, y solo construyendo redes podemos salvarlo. Diciendo la verdad, uniendo a la gente, creando nuevos medios de comunicación, apoyando a los que ya existen, haciendo público lo que quieren censurar. Así es como realmente podemos ayudar».
Escucha la entrevista a Duncan Tucker en el podcast de Index on Censorship en Soundcloud: soundcloud.com/indexmagazine
Duncan Tuckeres un periodista independiente afincado en Guadalajara, México.
Este artículo fue publicado en la revista Index on Censorship en primavera de 2017.
Traducción de Arrate Hidalgo.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
