Arts

Pussy Riot – Russian Punk Group

Feminist punk collective Pussy Riot made international headlines in 2012 when they were arrested for their anti-Putin performance in Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Moscow. Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich performed the so-called punk prayer in February 2012, imploring the Virgin Mary to “throw Putin out”. International media followed the consequent court case closely, many denouncing it as no different from a Communist show trial.

In August 2012, the three were sentenced to two years in jail for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, although Samutsevich was later freed on appeal. Despite Putin’s attempt to make an example of the trio, they have come to represent the struggle for free speech and justice in Russia and garnered support worldwide including from fellow musicians, among them Madonna, Sting and Yoko Ono.

The verdict was a bitter blow for freedom of expression in Russia, which has been under increasing attack since Putin’s re-election to the presidency in March 2012. But Pussy Riot members remained defiant, and delivered clear, pointed and excoriating attacks on the Putin regime in their closing statements from the dock. Yekaterina Samutsevich explained the setting for their protest:
“That Christ the Saviour Cathedral had become a significant symbol in the political strategy of the authorities was clear to many thinking people when Vladimir Putin’s former [KGB] colleague Kirill Gundyayev took over as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church”.

Maria Alyokhina spoke more generally about her country: “Russia, as a state, has long resembled an organism sick to the core. And the sickness explodes out into the open when you rub up against its inflamed abscesses. At first and for a long time this sickness gets hushed up in public, but eventually it always finds resolution through dialogue.”

As punk musician John Robb said “the 40 seconds performance in Christ the Saviour Cathedral was like the sound check for their performance in the dock”.

Photo: Demotix / Maria Pleshkova

Zanele Muholi – South African Photographer

Zanele Muholi is an award-winning photographer and LGBT activist whose work focuses on gender and sexual identity in post-Apartheid South Africa. The Open Society Initiative for South Africa has described her as “one of the country’s foremost artists”. Through her work, Muholi has documented the lives of the South Africa’s black lesbians in a manner that questions traditional perceptions of the black female body.

“In the face of all the challenges our community encounters daily, I embarked on a journey of visual activism to ensure that there is black queer visibility,” she told the New Yorker. Her images are both a statement and an archive, “marking, mapping and preserving an often invisible community for posterity”.

Although South Africa bans discrimination on the basis of sexuality, hostility towards sexual difference is pervasive and extremely violent. Homosexuality is still taboo and lesbians have been the targets of horrendous hate crimes including murders and “corrective rape”. Zanele told Index “Between March and September 2011, four lesbians had been murdered and between June and Nov. 2012, eight black lesbians have been killed. The political climate does nothing for the rights of those in danger right now.”

In 2009, Lulama Xingwana, the then minister for arts and culture, walked out of one of Muholi’s exhibitions. Xingwana later told press that she found the images of nude, lesbian couples “immoral” and against “nation-building”. As Zanele: “Many who have come out in the black community have been ostracised, disowned and others harmed. The social climate is that of fear. The townships are gripped by unthinkable violence and fear. “

Zanele has continued to work in spite of this hostility. However she suffered the greatest attack possible on an artist last year when more than 20 external hard drives representing more than five years’ work were stolen from her flat. One contained images of the funerals of three lesbians killed in hate crimes. “It was devastating, I got depressed and I went into mourning, but it also sparked a fierce desire in me, to continue to create and document. It temporarily set me back, but I am back on my grind.”

Photo: Flickr / museedesconfluences

Haifaa al Mansour– Saudi-Arabian film maker

In October 2012, filmmaker Haifaa al Mansour broke new ground in Saudi Arabia. Not only did she create the first film to be shot entirely in Saudi Arabia, but she is also the country’s first female filmmaker. No small feat in a country where women cannot drive, vote or work with men. Under the Saudi guardianship system, women are treated like minors. Regardless of their age, they are forbidden from travelling, studying or working without consent from their male guardians.

Against this backdrop, Al Mansour pressed ahead with her film Wadjda, which was shot entirely in Saudi Arabia using local actors, including two women in leading roles. The film follows a 10-year-old girl in the capital Riyadh who longs for a bike even though it is forbidden for women to cycle. But instead of being frustrated by the country’s strict laws, Al Mansour looked for innovative solutions to the challenges she faced. The film has received critical acclaim in the West. E Nina Rothe, for instance, described her as a ‘talented, ground-breaking film maker’ in the Huffington Post.

In a society where starring in films is frowned upon, finding female cast members was just one of these challenges. Another was the fact that Saudi Arabian women are not allowed to walk the streets alone. As a result, Al Mansour was forced to rely on location scouts to find the perfect spots to film. Filming also proved tricky and when in conservative neighbourhoods, she hid in a van and directed the cast from a phone or walkie-talkies.

Even though Al Mansour’s first feature film has received widespread critical acclaim, the chances are it won’t be shown in her home country, where there are no cinemas. She hopes however that people will watch it on satellite television or on DVD. Like other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia was hit by a wave of popular discontent in early 2011. In the wake of the Arab Spring, the authorities have clamped down on public criticism of officials or government policies.

Photo: Shutterstock.com / andersphoto

Aseem Trivedi – Indian Cartoonist

25-year-old Indian cartoonist Aseem Trivedi has emerged as one of India’s most controversial satirical artists. In September 2012, he was taken into custody and charged with sedition for allegedly ‘insulting the constitution’. The complainant against him claimed ‘there is nothing bigger than the Indian constitution’.

Trivedi’s cartoons are often scatological critiques of the authorities, showing politicians as animals urinating on the constitution. Other cartoons depict schoolchildren being taught ‘How To Be Corrupt’, and government officials making a drink from the blood of countrymen.

Trivedi has shown great courage in standing up to various attempts to silence him. In January 2012, his website Cartoons Against Corruption was suspended by the Mumbai Crime Branch for its supposedly offensive content – but shortly afterwards he reacted by establishing a blog hosting content in a similar vein. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, he said his intention was to depict the ‘ailing truth’ of the nation and send a strong message to the population. His consistent claim that it is foolish to enshrine respect of national symbols in law has been crucial in forcing the Indian public to consider their own views on some of India’s more archaic laws around blasphemy and sedition. He also challenges Section 66a of the Indian government’s Information Technology Act, which curtails free expression online. During December 2012, Trivedi fasted for eight days in protest.

India’s record on free expression is far from exemplary. Kunal Majumber, principal correspondent for the Indian daily Tehelha, told Index, ‘“Here we are laughing at Pakistan for trying to prosecute an 11-year-old girl for blasphemy, but in our country we’re trying to prosecute someone for sedition. Sometimes it’s funny we call ourselves the largest democracy on earth.”

Index Index – International free speech roundup 18/01/13

On 17 January, the European Parliament endorsed a resolution addressing ongoing human rights violations in Bahrain. The resolution, led by Dutch European Parliament member Marietje Schaake, called for “targeted EU sanctions against human rights violators in Bahrain”. The country has faced ongoing unrest since protests for reform began in February 2011, and the country’s security forces have been condemned internationally for using excessive force against protesters. Schaake condemned the usage of “tear gas and bird shots fired at close range”, as well as a lack of consistency in the judicial system — citing the inconsistencies in the cases of both activists and doctors jailed for treating protesters. The resolution also criticised the country’s failure to implement reforms based on recommendations issued by the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry in November 2011, which was commissioned by King Hamad.  In addition to clamping down on protests, Bahrain has also taken measures against activists online.

Meanwhile, human rights defender Said Yousif was released on bail today, but must return to court on 29 January on charges of spreading “false news with the intention of damaging state security.”  Yousif was arrested on 17 December while monitoring a protest in Manama, Bahrain’s capital.

Said Yousif was released on bail today

A journalist in Somalia who was arrested for interviewing an alleged rape victim has been accused of fabricating the story by Somalia’s police commissioner. General Sharif Sheikhuna Maye issued a statement on 16 January saying that Lul Ali Hassan, who claimed she had been raped by Somali soldiers on 10 January, was bribed by journalist Abdiaziz Abdinur and members of a women’s rights group into concocting a false story. The general said the alleged victim told police she was offered extra rations and money at the displaced women’s camp she had been living in. Medical examinations, he also said, had proven that there was no evidence of a rape occurring.

Dutch football club Ajax Amsterdam has been fined by UEFA, after fans protested the prices of football tickets during a game. During the Champions League match at home to Manchester City in October, fans held banners displaying messages saying “80 euros for the away section is ridiculous,” with others holding banners emblazoned with offensive messages to Chelsea, Manchester City, Red Bull Salzburg and Red Bull Leipzig. The club was fined €10,000 (roughly GBP£8,400) for the “display of a provocative and inappropriate banner.”

An Iranian human rights lawyer who was jailed for defending several human rights activists in court was temporarily released on 17 January. Nasrin Sotoudeh was released on leave for three days from Evin prison, a period that could be extended. Sotoudeh was arrested in September 2010 under charges of promoting propaganda under the regime and acting against national security — initially sentenced to 11 years in prison, but reduced to six years upon appeal. Sotoudeh, an award-winning legal defender of free speech, has criticised death penalties issued to minors. While in prison she went on hunger strike to protest her treatment. She was denied visits from her children and husband, as well as access to lawyers.

Social networking and news websites in Tajikistan were blocked by the government, news sources reported yesterday (17 January). Sites were blocked under Tajikistan’s Association of Internet Service Providers, but remained accessible under other network providers. Asomuddin Atoev, head of the Association of Internet Service Providers said that the government’s communication department ordered the blocking via SMS. Communications chief Beg Zuhurov said the sites would return in “two or three days”, claiming the disappearance of the websites was due to a technical issue. Last year, over 130 websites were blocked for “technical repair” ahead of the December elections.

 

Arts

Pussy Riot – Russian Punk Group

Feminist punk collective Pussy Riot made international headlines in 2012 when they were arrested for their anti-Putin performance in Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Moscow. Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich performed the so-called punk prayer in February 2012, imploring the Virgin Mary to “throw Putin out”. International media followed the consequent court case closely, many denouncing it as no different from a Communist show trial.

In August 2012, the three were sentenced to two years in jail for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, although Samutsevich was later freed on appeal. Despite Putin’s attempt to make an example of the trio, they have come to represent the struggle for free speech and justice in Russia and garnered support worldwide including from fellow musicians, among them Madonna, Sting and Yoko Ono.

The verdict was a bitter blow for freedom of expression in Russia, which has been under increasing attack since Putin’s re-election to the presidency in March 2012. But Pussy Riot members remained defiant, and delivered clear, pointed and excoriating attacks on the Putin regime in their closing statements from the dock. Yekaterina Samutsevich explained the setting for their protest:
“That Christ the Saviour Cathedral had become a significant symbol in the political strategy of the authorities was clear to many thinking people when Vladimir Putin’s former [KGB] colleague Kirill Gundyayev took over as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church”.

Maria Alyokhina spoke more generally about her country: “Russia, as a state, has long resembled an organism sick to the core. And the sickness explodes out into the open when you rub up against its inflamed abscesses. At first and for a long time this sickness gets hushed up in public, but eventually it always finds resolution through dialogue.”

As punk musician John Robb said “the 40 seconds performance in Christ the Saviour Cathedral was like the sound check for their performance in the dock”.

Photo: Demotix / Maria Pleshkova

Zanele Muholi – South African Photographer

Zanele Muholi is an award-winning photographer and LGBT activist whose work focuses on gender and sexual identity in post-Apartheid South Africa. The Open Society Initiative for South Africa has described her as “one of the country’s foremost artists”. Through her work, Muholi has documented the lives of the South Africa’s black lesbians in a manner that questions traditional perceptions of the black female body.

“In the face of all the challenges our community encounters daily, I embarked on a journey of visual activism to ensure that there is black queer visibility,” she told the New Yorker. Her images are both a statement and an archive, “marking, mapping and preserving an often invisible community for posterity”.

Although South Africa bans discrimination on the basis of sexuality, hostility towards sexual difference is pervasive and extremely violent. Homosexuality is still taboo and lesbians have been the targets of horrendous hate crimes including murders and “corrective rape”. Zanele told Index “Between March and September 2011, four lesbians had been murdered and between June and Nov. 2012, eight black lesbians have been killed. The political climate does nothing for the rights of those in danger right now.”

In 2009, Lulama Xingwana, the then minister for arts and culture, walked out of one of Muholi’s exhibitions. Xingwana later told press that she found the images of nude, lesbian couples “immoral” and against “nation-building”. As Zanele: “Many who have come out in the black community have been ostracised, disowned and others harmed. The social climate is that of fear. The townships are gripped by unthinkable violence and fear. “

Zanele has continued to work in spite of this hostility. However she suffered the greatest attack possible on an artist last year when more than 20 external hard drives representing more than five years’ work were stolen from her flat. One contained images of the funerals of three lesbians killed in hate crimes. “It was devastating, I got depressed and I went into mourning, but it also sparked a fierce desire in me, to continue to create and document. It temporarily set me back, but I am back on my grind.”

Photo: Flickr / museedesconfluences

Haifaa al Mansour– Saudi-Arabian film maker

In October 2012, filmmaker Haifaa al Mansour broke new ground in Saudi Arabia. Not only did she create the first film to be shot entirely in Saudi Arabia, but she is also the country’s first female filmmaker. No small feat in a country where women cannot drive, vote or work with men. Under the Saudi guardianship system, women are treated like minors. Regardless of their age, they are forbidden from travelling, studying or working without consent from their male guardians.

Against this backdrop, Al Mansour pressed ahead with her film Wadjda, which was shot entirely in Saudi Arabia using local actors, including two women in leading roles. The film follows a 10-year-old girl in the capital Riyadh who longs for a bike even though it is forbidden for women to cycle. But instead of being frustrated by the country’s strict laws, Al Mansour looked for innovative solutions to the challenges she faced. The film has received critical acclaim in the West. E Nina Rothe, for instance, described her as a ‘talented, ground-breaking film maker’ in the Huffington Post.

In a society where starring in films is frowned upon, finding female cast members was just one of these challenges. Another was the fact that Saudi Arabian women are not allowed to walk the streets alone. As a result, Al Mansour was forced to rely on location scouts to find the perfect spots to film. Filming also proved tricky and when in conservative neighbourhoods, she hid in a van and directed the cast from a phone or walkie-talkies.

Even though Al Mansour’s first feature film has received widespread critical acclaim, the chances are it won’t be shown in her home country, where there are no cinemas. She hopes however that people will watch it on satellite television or on DVD. Like other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia was hit by a wave of popular discontent in early 2011. In the wake of the Arab Spring, the authorities have clamped down on public criticism of officials or government policies.

Photo: Shutterstock.com / andersphoto

Aseem Trivedi – Indian Cartoonist

25-year-old Indian cartoonist Aseem Trivedi has emerged as one of India’s most controversial satirical artists. In September 2012, he was taken into custody and charged with sedition for allegedly ‘insulting the constitution’. The complainant against him claimed ‘there is nothing bigger than the Indian constitution’.

Trivedi’s cartoons are often scatological critiques of the authorities, showing politicians as animals urinating on the constitution. Other cartoons depict schoolchildren being taught ‘How To Be Corrupt’, and government officials making a drink from the blood of countrymen.

Trivedi has shown great courage in standing up to various attempts to silence him. In January 2012, his website Cartoons Against Corruption was suspended by the Mumbai Crime Branch for its supposedly offensive content – but shortly afterwards he reacted by establishing a blog hosting content in a similar vein. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, he said his intention was to depict the ‘ailing truth’ of the nation and send a strong message to the population. His consistent claim that it is foolish to enshrine respect of national symbols in law has been crucial in forcing the Indian public to consider their own views on some of India’s more archaic laws around blasphemy and sedition. He also challenges Section 66a of the Indian government’s Information Technology Act, which curtails free expression online. During December 2012, Trivedi fasted for eight days in protest.

India’s record on free expression is far from exemplary. Kunal Majumber, principal correspondent for the Indian daily Tehelha, told Index, ‘“Here we are laughing at Pakistan for trying to prosecute an 11-year-old girl for blasphemy, but in our country we’re trying to prosecute someone for sedition. Sometimes it’s funny we call ourselves the largest democracy on earth.”

What reception will India give new Rusdhie film?

The film of Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children is set to be released on 1 February. If the team behind the movie adaptation is at all nervous about screening the film they have good reason. Rushdie, who wrote the screenplay, and has been the literary face for freedom of expression for years, has a tumultuous history of censorship with India.

The Booker prize-winning book is about two children, born at the stroke of midnight as India gained its independence. Their lives become intertwined with the life of this new country.

One of the figures in the book, The Widow, was based on former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. In the book, the character, through genocide and several wars, helps destroy Midnight’s Children. Gandhi had imposed a widely-criticised State of Emergency in India.

In an interesting turn of events, Gandhi threatened Rushdie libel over a single line. That line suggested that Gandhi’s son Sanjay had accused his mother of bringing about his father’s heart attack through neglect. Rushdie settled out of court, and the single line was removed from the book.

The movie adaptation of Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children

The real controversy that followed, the one that changed Rushdie’s life completely, came after the 1988 release of his book The Satanic Verses. While the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini had issued a fatwa against Rushdie and called for his execution (citing the book as blasphemous), the author saw many countries, including India, indulge in their own brand of censorship.

As has been revealed in Rushdie’s memoir Joseph Anton, the author felt the Indian government banned his book without much scrutiny. The Finance Ministry banned the book under section 11 of the Customs Act, and in that order stated that this ban did not detract from the literary and artistic merit of his work. Rushdie, appalled at the logic penned a letter to the then prime minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, stating:

Apparently, my book is not deemed blasphemous or objectionable in itself, but is being proscribed for, so to speak, its own good… From where I sit, Mr Gandhi, it looks very much as if your government has become unable or unwilling to resist pressure from more or less any extremist religious grouping; that, in short, it’s the fundamentalists who now control the political agenda.

Rushdie was right, of course. Years later, in 2007, he attended the first Jaipur Literary Festival in India unnoticed. Without any security or fuss, he arrived unannounced, mingling with the crowd. Things had changed dramatically by 2012, when Rushdie’s arrival to the now must-attend literary festival was much publicised, and predictably attracted controversy.

Maulana Abul Qasim Nomani, vice-chancellor at India’s Muslim Deoband School, called for the government to cancel Rusdie’s visa for the event as he had annoyed the religious sentiments of Muslims in the past. (Incidentally, Rushdie does not need a visa to enter India as he holds a PIO  — “Person of Indian Origin” — card.)

The controversy escalated quickly, with the organisers first attempting to link Rushdie via video instead of having him physically present, but then cancelling the arrangement when the Festival came under graver physical threat. It was a sad day for freedom of expression in India, especially considering the fact that many, including Rushdie felt these moves were politically motivated because of upcoming elections in Uttar Pradesh, where the Muslim vote is very important. The government vehemently denied these claims.

Liberals in India were shocked at the illiberal values that the modern India state espoused, feigning to not be able to protect a writer and a festival against the threats of protestors. Shoma Chaudhary of Tehelka wrote:

The trouble is nobody any longer knows what Rushdie was doing in The Satanic Verses: neither those who are offended by him, nor those who defend him. Almost no one, including this writer, was given a chance to read the book.

Later in the year, initial press reports around Midnight’s Children revealed that the film could not find a distributor in India. The production team thought it might be a case of self-censorship as the film featured a controversial portrayal of Indira Gandhi. However, PVR Pictures, a major distributor in India, has plans to release the film in the country in February 2013.

31 years after the Midnight’s Children hit the stands, and the same year as he was bullied into cancelling a visit to a literary festival, it seems Salman Rushdie will yet again challenge Indian society. It remains to be seen if he will, yet again, become a pawn in the internal politics of the country.