15 May 2017 | Campaigns -- Featured, Denmark, Digital Freedom, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]We the undersigned respectfully urge the Danish Parliament to vote in favour of bill L 170 repealing the blasphemy ban in section 140 of the Danish criminal code, punishing “Any person who, in public, ridicules or insults the dogmas or worship of any lawfully existing religious community”.
Denmark is recognised as a global leader when it comes to the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. However, Denmark’s blasphemy ban is manifestly inconsistent with the Danish tradition for frank and open debate and puts Denmark in the same category as illiberal states where blasphemy laws are being used to silence dissent and persecute minorities. The recent decision to charge a man – who had burned the Quran – for violating section 140 for the first time since 1971, demonstrates that the blasphemy ban is not merely of symbolic value. It represents a significant retrograde step in the protection of freedom of expression in Denmark.
The Danish blasphemy ban is incompatible with both freedom of expression and equality before the law. There is no compelling reason why the feelings of religious believers should receive special protection against offence. In a vibrant and pluralistic democracy, all issues must be open to even harsh and scathing debate, criticism and satire. While the burning of holy books may be grossly offensive to religious believers it is nonetheless a peaceful form of symbolic expression that must be protected by free speech.
Numerous Danes have offended the religious feelings of both Christians and Muslims without being charged under section 140. This includes a film detailing the supposed erotic life of Jesus Christ, the burning of the Bible on national TV and the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed. The Cartoon affair landed Denmark in a storm of controversy and years of ongoing terrorist threats against journalists, editors and cartoonists. When terror struck in February 2015 the venue was a public debate on blasphemy and free speech.
In this environment, Denmark must maintain that in a liberal democracy, laws protect those who offend from threats, not those who threaten from being offended.
Retaining the blasphemy ban is also incompatible with Denmark’s human rights obligations. In April 2017 Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagtland emphasised that “blasphemy should not be deemed a criminal offence as the freedom of conscience forms part of freedom of expression”. This position is shared by the UN’s Human Rights Committee and the EU Guidelines on freedom of expression and religion.
Since 2014, The Netherlands, Norway, Iceland and Malta have all abolished blasphemy bans. By going against this trend Denmark will undermine the crucial European and international efforts to repeal blasphemy bans globally.
This has real consequences for human beings, religious and secular, around the globe. In countries like Pakistan, Mauretania, Iran, Indonesia and Russia blasphemy bans are being used against minorities as well as political and religious dissenters. Denmark’s blasphemy ban can be used to legitimise such laws. In 2016 the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief pointed out that “During a conference held in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) [in 2015], the Danish blasphemy provision was cited by one presenter as an example allegedly indicating an emerging international customary law on “combating defamation of religions”.
Blasphemy laws often serve to legitimise violence and terror. In Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh free-thinkers, political activists, members of religious minorities and atheists have been killed by extremists. In a world where freedom of expression is in retreat and extremism on the rise, democracies like Denmark must forcefully demonstrate that inclusive, pluralistic and tolerant societies are built on the right to think, believe and speak freely. By voting to repeal the blasphemy ban Denmark will send a clear signal that it stands in solidarity with the victims and not the enforcers of blasphemy laws.
Jacob Mchangama, Executive director, Justitia
Steven Pinker, Professor Harvard University
Ahmedur Rashid Chowdhury, Exiled editor of Shuddhashar, 2016 winner International Writer of Courage Award
Pascal Bruckner, Author
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Human Rights Activist Founder of AHA Foundation,
Dr. Elham Manea, academic and human rights advocate (Switzerland)
Sultana Kamal, Chairperson, Centre for Social Activism Bangladesh
Deeyah Khan, CEO @Fuuse & founder @sister_hood_mag.
Fatou Sow, Women Living Under Muslim Laws
Elisabeth Dabinter, Author
William Nygaard, Publisher
Flemming Rose, Author and journalist
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO, Index on Censorship
Kenan Malik, Author of From Fatwa to Jihad
Thomas Hughes, Executive Director Article 19
Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America
Pragna Patel – Director of Southall Black Sisters
Leena Krohn, Finnish writer
Jeanne Favret-Saada, Honorary Professor of Anthropology, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes,
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Fariborz Pooya, Host of Bread and Roses TV
Frederik Stjernfelt, Professor, University of Aalborg in Copenhagen
Marieme Helie Lucas, Secularism Is A Women’s Issue
Michael De Dora, Director of Government Affairs, Center for Inquiry
Robyn Blumner, President & CEO, Center for Inquiry
Nina Sankari, Kazimierz Lyszczynski Foundation (Poland).
Sonja Biserko, Founder and president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
James Lindsay, Author
Malhar Mali, Publisher and editor, Areo Magazine
Julie Lenarz – Executive Director, Human Security Centre, London
Terry Sanderson President, National Secular Society
Greg Lukianoff, CEO and President, FIRE
Thomas Cushman, Professor Wellesley College
Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School
Simon Cottee, the Freedom Project, Wellesley College
Paul Cliteur, professor of Jurisprudence at Leiden University
Lino Veljak, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Lalia Ducos, Women’s Initiative for Citizenship and Universals Rights , WICUR
Lepa Mladjenovic, LC, Belgrade
Elsa Antonioni, Casa per non subire violenza, Bologna
Bobana Macanovic, Autonomos Women’s Center, Director, Belgrade
Harsh Kapoor, Editor, South Asia Citzens Web
Mehdi Mozaffari, Professor Em., Aarhus University, Denmark
Øystein Rian, Historian, Professor Emeritus University of Oslo
Kjetil Jakobsen, Professor Nord University
Scott Griffen, Director of Press Freedom Programmes International Press Institute (IPI)
Henryk Broder, Journalist
David Rand, President, Libres penseurs athées — Atheist Freethinkers
Tom Herrenberg, Lecturer University of Leiden
Simone Castagno, Coordinamento Liguria Rainbow
Laura Caille, Secretary General Libres
Mariannes Andy Heintz, writer
Bernice Dubois, Conseil Européen des Fédérations WIZO
Ivan Hare, QC[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1495443304735-e4b217b9-25e4-0″ taxonomies=”88, 53″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Mar 2017 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements, Turkey, Turkey Statements
JOINT ORAL STATEMENT ON THE DETERIORATION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND MEDIA FREEDOM IN TURKEY
UN Human Rights Council 34th Special Session
Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention
15 March 2017
Mr President,
Index on Censorship, PEN International, ARTICLE 19 and 65 organisations are deeply concerned by the continuous deterioration of freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey following the violent and contemptible coup attempt on 15 July 2016.
Over 180 news outlets have been shut down under laws passed by presidential decree following the imposition of a state of emergency. There are now at least 148 writers, journalists and media workers in prison, including Ahmet Şık, Kadri Gürsel, Ahmet and Mehmet Altan, Ayşe Nazlı Ilıcak and İnan Kızılkaya, making Turkey the biggest jailer of journalists in the world. The Turkish authorities are abusing the state of emergency by severely restricting fundamental rights and freedoms, stifling criticism and limiting the diversity of views and opinions available in the public sphere.
Restrictions have reached new heights in the lead up to a crucial referendum on constitutional reforms, which would significantly increase executive powers, set for 16 April 2017. The Turkish authorities’ campaign has been marred by threats, arrests and prosecutions of those who have voiced criticism of the proposed amendments. Several members of the opposition have been arrested on terror charges. Thousands of public employees, including hundreds of academics and opponents to the constitutional reforms, were dismissed in February. Outspoken “No” campaigners have been detained, adding to the overall climate of suspicion and fear. The rights to freedom of expression and information, essential to fair and free elections, are in jeopardy.
In the run-up to the referendum, the need for media pluralism is more important than ever. Voters have the right to be duly informed and to be provided with comprehensive information on all views, including dissenting voices, in sufficient time. The prevailing atmosphere should be one of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. There should be no fear of reprisals.
We urge this Council, its members and observer states, to call on the Turkish authorities to:
- Guarantee equal broadcasting time for all parties and allow for the dissemination of all information to the maximum extent possible in order to ensure that voters are fully informed;
- Put an end to the climate of suspicion and fear by:
- Immediately releasing all those held in prison for exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression;
- Ending the prosecutions and detention of journalists simply on the basis of the content of their journalism or alleged affiliations;
- Halting executive interference with independent news organisations including in relation to editorial decisions, dismissals of journalists and editors, pressure and intimidation against critical news outlets and journalists;
- Revoke the excessively broad provisions under the state of emergency, the application of which, in practice, are incompatible with Turkey’s human rights obligations.
Thank you Mr. President
ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency
Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech
Albanian Media Institute
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain
ARTICLE 19
Association of European Journalists
Basque PEN
Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Cartoonists Rights Network International
Center for Independent Journalism – Hungary
Croatian PEN centre
Danish PEN
Digital Rights Foundation
English PEN
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
European Federation of Journalists
Finnish PEN
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
German PEN
Global Editors Network
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Human rights watch
Icelandic PEN
Independent Chinese PEN Center
Independent Journalism Center – Moldova
Index on Censorship
Institute for Media and Society
International Press Institute
International Publishers Association
Journaliste en danger
Media Foundation for West Africa
Media Institute of Southern Africa
Media Watch
MYMEDIA
Nigeria PEN Centre
Norwegian PEN
Pacific Islands News Association
Pakistan Press Foundation
Palestine PEN
PEN American Center
PEN Austria
PEN Canada
PEN Català
PEN Centre in Bosnia and Herzegovina
PEN Centre of German-Speaking Writers Abroad
PEN Eritrea in exile
PEN Esperanto
PEN Estonia
PEN France
PEN International
PEN Melbourne
PEN Myanmar
PEN Romania
PEN Suisse Romand
PEN Trieste
Portuguese PEN Centre
Punto24
Reporters Without Borders
Russian PEN Centre
San Miguel PEN
Serbian PEN Centre
Social Media Exchange – SMEX
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
South East European Network for Professionalization of Media
Vigilance pour la Démocratie et l’État Civique
Wales PEN Cymru
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WANIFRA)
10 Mar 2017 | Denmark, Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Few people take religion less seriously than the Danes.
Only 19% consider religion to be an important factor in their day to day lives. While some 76% remain members of the state church, that figure is down from 83% in 2006, and more than 24,000 people left the institution last year. Church going remains popular at Christmas, weddings and baptisms, but many churches are almost empty on any given Sunday. Long gone are the days when criticising the doctrines of Lutheranism or the Lutheran state church would land you in prison (or on the scaffold). So it created quite a stir when in February a local prosecutor announced that a Danish man was being charged for violating Denmark’s blasphemy law, which has been dormant since 1971 and last resulted in a conviction in 1946. A move approved by Denmark’s chief prosecutor.
How was a dead letter such as the Danish blasphemy ban suddenly revived?
The first step was taken by the Danish Criminal Law Council, an expert body advising the Ministry of Justice. In 2015 it released a lengthy statement on the blasphemy ban arguing that the burning of holy books would still be punishable, despite the decades-long practice of emphasising the importance of free speech over religious feelings. However, suspiciously, the expert body omitted any reference to a case from 1997 in which a Danish artist burned the Bible on national television.
Back then a number of complaints from the public were dismissed by the chief prosecutor emphasising among other things the importance of freedom of expression. It is difficult to understand why this seemingly clear precedent was disregarded by the expert body. But it was this questionable interpretation that paved the way for bringing back from the dead a ban thought of as antiquated and incompatible with a secular liberal democracy by most Danes, and indeed by most Europeans, since only five EU-member states still have blasphemy bans on the books.
One of the reasons cited by the expert body for punishing the burning of holy books is the need to prevent religious extremists – at home and abroad – from instigating riots and violence as a result of having their religious feelings insulted. This is a deeply problematic argument in and of itself, but even more so in the context of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten having been the target of at least four foiled terrorist attacks since publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2005, the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and the killings of atheists and free thinkers in Bangladesh. A blasphemy ban indirectly legitimizes the Jihadist’s Veto, rather than confronting it. It is not punishable – nor should it be – to burn the Danish flag as has happened repeatedly in protests against the cartoons both in Denmark and abroad. No one would dream of arguing that it should be a crime to burn the Communist manifesto, Burke’s Reflection on the French Revolution, or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations even though communists, conservatives and classical liberals might view these works as essential to their identities and deeply held beliefs. In all likelihood one of the most frequently burned book of the 20th century was Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, which went up in flames all over the world as offended Muslims took to the streets. Offended Muslims were free to do so, while Rushdie had to spend years living underground.
While burning books is certainly a crude and primitive practice with deeply troublesome historical connotations, it is nonetheless a peaceful symbolic expression, that should be protected free speech, whether the content of the scorched paper is secular or religious. By solely protecting religious books against such desecration the Danish blasphemy ban not only violates free speech and equality before the law, it is also tantamount to victim blaming and a dereliction of duty on the part of a liberal society which in no uncertain terms should make clear to religious fundamentalists that they cannot hope to have democracies impose their religious red lines on the rest of society through threats, intimidation and violence.
This was a point made clear by both Norway and Iceland whose parliaments chose to abolish these countries’ respective blasphemy bans as a direct consequence of the attack against Charlie Hebdo.
It would be wrong however, to suggest that Denmark has succumbed to the will of Islamists in particular, rather than to a loss of faith in free speech in general. Last year Parliament adopted a bill prohibiting “religious teachings” that “expressly condone” certain punishable acts and allows the government to maintain a dynamic list of “hate preachers” barred from entering Denmark. These initiatives were the direct consequence of a documentary exposing radical imams in Danish mosques preaching that the punishment for adultery and apostasy is stoning. And the current government has also presented a bill that would criminalize the mere sharing of “terrorist propaganda” online and allow the police to block access to websites containing criminal material such as terrorist propaganda or racist content. These developments signal a marked shift in the Danish approach to free speech.
In the post-World War II era Denmark has with a few exceptions been a liberal democracy committed to the idea that freedom of expression was an essential tool in defeating extremism and totalitarian ideologies. But Denmark is turning towards a model of militant democracy where free speech is often seen as the problem rather than the solution, and as a hindrance rather than the foundation of social peace. The revival of the Danish blasphemy ban should therefore be seen in the wider context of a world where respect for freedom of expression is at its lowest level in 12 years, a development that has now affected even one of the global bastions and beacons of free speech.
Jacob Mchangama is director of Justicia, a Copenhagen think tank focusing on human rights and the rule of law[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1489139072253-6b7daeee-fe12-8″ taxonomies=”53″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
1 Mar 2017
[vc_row equal_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1487955099221{margin-right: -15px !important;margin-left: -15px !important;}”][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1487955108553{margin-right: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;margin-left: 15px !important;background-color: #ffffff !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”DEFEND MEDIA FREEDOM” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”SUPPORT INDEX ON CENSORSHIP” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Reporters working to share the truth are being harassed, intimidated and prosecuted – across the globe.
Index on Censorship is a nonprofit fighting against these corrosive attacks on press freedom.
Index documents threats to media freedom in Europe via a monitoring project and campaigns against laws that stifle journalists’ work.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][staff name=”Mapping Media Freedom” title=”Documenting threats to the press in Europe and neighbouring countries” profile_image=”85817″]Mapping Media Freedom – a major Index on Censorship project and a joint undertaking with the European Federation of Journalists, partially funded by the European Commission – covers 42 countries, including all EU member states, plus Bosnia, Iceland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Turkey, Albania along with Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and Azerbaijan. The platform was launched in May 2014 and has recorded over 3,900 incidents threatening media freedom.
“The precarious state of press freedom across the globe is underlined by the volume of verified incidents added to Mapping Media Freedom in 2017. The spectrum of threats is growing, the pressure on journalists increasing and the public right to transparent information is under assault. People who are simply trying to do their job are being targeted like never before. These trends do not bode well for 2018.” — Joy Hyvarinen, Index on Censorship head of advocacy[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][staff name=”Changes to the Official Secrets Act” title=”Proposals to update spy laws a threat to journalism” profile_image=”81191″]Proposed legislation that could see journalists and whistleblowers sentenced up to 14 years for leaking official documents has no place in a democracy. The proposals were drawn up by the Law Commission as part of a review of the Official Secrets Act and would cover any data that affects the UK’s national and international interests, including economic interests. The public’s right to know about the Brexit negotiations, for instance, could be put into jeopardy if these proposals were brought into force.
“It is unthinkable that whistle blowers and those to whom they reveal their information should face jail for leaking and receiving information that is in the public interest. It is shocking that so few organisations were consulted on these proposed changes.” — Jodie Ginsberg, CEO, Index on Censorship[/staff][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][staff name=”Section 40, Crime and Courts Act” title=”Section 40 would allow the corrupt to silence investigative journalists” profile_image=”85827″]Section 40 is part of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which deals with a whole range of issues but also implemented some of the recommendations contained in the Leveson Report into phone hacking by newspapers. Index on Censorship strongly opposes the introduction of section 40.
Section 40 addresses the awarding of costs in a case where someone makes a legal claim against a publisher of “news-related material”. The provision means that any publisher who is not a member of an approved regulator at the time of the claim can be forced to pay both sides’ cost in a court case — even if they win.
“If such laws were introduced in another country, British politicians would be speaking out against such shocking media censorship.” — Rachael Jolley, editor, Index on Censorship magazine[/staff][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row equal_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1474531377622{margin-right: -15px !important;margin-left: -15px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1/3″ el_class=”text_white” css=”.vc_custom_1487957370833{margin-right: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;margin-left: 15px !important;background-color: #f21400 !important;}”][vc_column_text]
A gift of £20
ensures a verified attack is mapped publicly
[wpedon id=100537]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ el_class=”text_white” css=”.vc_custom_1487957380442{margin-right: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;margin-left: 15px !important;background-color: #f21400 !important;}”][vc_column_text]
A gift of £100
enables an official report to pressure governments
[wpedon id=100538]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ el_class=”text_white” css=”.vc_custom_1487957389388{margin-right: 15px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;margin-left: 15px !important;background-color: #f21400 !important;}”][vc_column_text]
A gift of £1000
supports extensive fieldwork to identify and confirm reported violations
[wpedon id=100539]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1474531692548{margin-top: 30px !important;margin-bottom: 30px !important;}” el_class=”mw700″][vc_column][vc_column_text]
UK donors can also give to Index on Censorship by making a bank transfer.
Sort Code: 16-58-10 Account number: 20110063
Outside the UK and cannot access Paypal? Please email [email protected]
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
If you are a US donor and would like more information about tax deductible charitable giving to Index, please contact [email protected]. Index works with CAF American Donor Fund.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row equal_height=”yes” content_placement=”middle” css=”.vc_custom_1487172040880{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-right: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;margin-left: 0px !important;background-color: #ee3424 !important;}” el_class=”text_white”][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1478508145989{padding-top: 60px !important;padding-bottom: 60px !important;background: #000000 url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/art-and-the-law-banner.jpg?id=80742) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1474534568795{padding-top: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Sponsor the Awards” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:24|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]If you would be interested in sponsorship – including sponsorship of our Digital and Arts Awards – please contact Helen Galliano – [email protected][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row equal_height=”yes” content_placement=”middle” css=”.vc_custom_1487172040880{margin-top: 15px !important;margin-right: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 15px !important;margin-left: 0px !important;background-color: #ee3424 !important;}” el_class=”text_white”][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1487609489413{padding-top: 60px !important;padding-bottom: 60px !important;background: #ffffff url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2017-awards-logo-white.jpg?id=85472) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: contain !important;}”][vc_row_inner css=”.vc_custom_1487609333823{background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: contain !important;}”][vc_column_inner][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1474534568795{padding-top: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Freedom of Expression Awards 2017″ font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:24|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2016%2F11%2Fawards-2017%2F|||”][vc_column_text]Celebrate the courage and creativity of some of the world’s greatest journalists, artists, campaigners and digital activists[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
