19 Apr 2010 | Events, United Kingdom
Index on Censorship and the Libel Reform Campaign are hosting the official “Free Speech Hustings” of the General Election 2010 and you’re invited. We have a number of free tickets reserved especially for our supporters so you can see Jack Straw from Labour, Dominic Grieve from the Conservatives, and Evan Harris from the Liberal Democratsgo head to head over libel law reform and protecting our freedom of speech.
The Free Speech Hustings will bring together scientists, writers, human rights activists, journalists, bloggers and most importantly… voters – we want you to put the difficult questions to the candidates about free speech and libel reform, counter-terrorism, privacy and religious hatred.
The event is hosted by the Libel Reform Campaign – Sense About Science, English PEN and Index on Censorship
21 April at 6.30pm at the Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, London, EC1R 3GA – to book email: [email protected] or call 020 7324 2570.
11 Mar 2010 | Events
Sunday 21st March, 12pm, Christ Church Marquee, Oxford
George Orwell was a staunch proponent of freedom of all kinds, especially of speech and of the press. But with criticisms of the media flourishing, preachers of hate making headlines, the anonymity of the internet, and journalists complaining about libel laws – how free is free speech, and what should the limits be?
Panelists include
- Catherine Bennett (The Observer, shortlisted for the Orwell Prize for Journalism 2009)
- John Kampfner (Chief executive director of Index on Censorship, author of Freedom for Sale)
- Geoffrey Robertson QC (lawyer, broadcaster, author)
Chaired by Albert Scardino Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former Orwell Prize judge.
Book here
3 Mar 2010 | News and features, United Kingdom
Michael Foot was not only a principled politician, writes Paul Anderson. The former Labour party leader was a passionate journalist and a lifelong defender of free expression
(more…)
10 Feb 2010 | Uncategorized
The Court of Appeal’s decision today to release material relating to the torture of “war on terror” detainee Binyam Mohamed is undoubtedly an embarrassment for David Miliband, the Foreign Office and the government.
The redacted evidence, itself a mere seven paragraphs, revealed reports that Mohamed, who has never been charged with any terror offence, was shackled during interrogation, subjected to sleep deprivation and suffered severe mental stress.
The paragraphs did not reveal any evidence of direct British intelligence involvement in torture, though the judges made it clear in the last paragraph: “The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of BM by the United States authorities.”
So one can understand the Foreign office’s attempts to cover up the evidence: but at a time when Barack Obama’s White House has revealed far more disturbing details of the treatment of renditioned prisones than the ones contained in these paragraphs, it seems disingenuous for Milliband to claim, as he did, that the publication of these paragraphs would endanger US/UK intelligence sharing. Miliband’s lawyers even went so far as to have a paragraph redacted from the Court of Appeal judgement at the last minute, in a scrabbling effort to defend the reputation of the security services.
So was there a motive beyond this? Embarrassment? Shame? Simple control freakery? Possibly a combination of the three. Both Miliband and his Conservative shadow, William Hague, have spun the judgement as upholding the “control principle” on intelligence sharing. This suggests that there would not be any significant difference in approach to secrecy by any future Conservative government. Meanwhile, Miliband has ruled out a public inquiry into Mohamed’s case — unsurprising when one considers the lengths to which the government went to conceal seven tiny morsels of information.
Of interest, however, to Index on Censorship and civil libertarians is this line from the judgement: “[In] principle, a real risk of serious damage to national security, of whatever degree, should not automatically trump a public interest in open justice.”
Encouragingly, (and unusually) an English court has committed to free expression and exchange of information as a principle. Our politicians understandably recoil from the free flow of information (God knows it did them no favours in the recent expenses scandal), but now their hand has been forced yet again, isn’t it time that all the UK’s parties started taking free expression to their hearts? The revulsion at attempts to cover up torture, the disgust at the refusal to be open about expenses, and the popular clamour for reform of the libel laws should demonstrate to UK legislators that whoever commits to free speech and free information this Spring will win not just kudos, but votes.
