24 Jan 2018 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Both before and after the state of emergency that followed the botched coup in 2016, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has shown increasing authoritarian tendencies, rolling back an essentially weak democracy. Now a truly authoritarian regime is in place and instigates multiple attacks against fundamental rights and democratic institutions, such as arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of critical voices, extensive use of emergency decrees, massive purges of the state institutions and the witch hunt against the Academics for Peace, signatories of the Peace petition. As it is generally the case, free speech and academic freedom have been major casualties of this authoritarian drift. Gathering academics, lawyers and human rights defenders, this panel will offer a critical insight into current legal and political developments in Turkey and discuss the way forward in the defence of freedom of expression and academic freedom in the country.
Panel 1 – 14.30 – 16.00 Free Speech under Threat in Turkey: A Legal Approach
Chair: Noémi Lévy-Aksu (Birkbeck College)
Ayse Bingöl (Media Legal Defence): The criminalisation of speech under state of emergency regime.
Bill Bowring (Birkbeck College, Professor of Law): Recent Strasbourg case law on freedom of expression in Turkey.
Oya Aydın (Lawyer): What are the Academics for Peace accused of?
Panel 2 – 16.15 – 17.30 Trial Observation, Legal Intervention and Advocacy
Chair: Mehmet Uğur (University of Greenwich)
Georgia Nash (Article 19)
Sarah Clarke (Pen International)
Hanna Machlin (Index on Censorship)[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
When: Tuesday 30 January 2018, 2:30-5:30pm
Where: Birkbeck College, London (Map)
Tickets: Free. Register here
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]
23 Jan 2018 | Academic Freedom, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”97694″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Since January 2016 the Academics for Peace case has become one of the symbols of the crackdown on democracy in Turkey.
No critical voices are spared in the repression: MPs, journalists, lawyers, human rights activists, students and many others are detained and/or have been prosecuted for their opinions and activities.
Each week brings new politically-motivated trials, where anonymous citizens and prominent figures of Turkey’s political and cultural life are faced with the most serious of criminal charges. Fundamental rights are put in the dock and go on trial and systematically abused. The week beginning 4 December was no exception, with trials targeting Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) politicians, dozens of journalists and the first hearings of scholars connected to Academics for Peace.
Academics for Peace are university professors and graduate students who signed a peace petition entitled We Will Not Be a Party To This Crime in January 2016. This statement denounced the government’s violations of human rights in the Kurdish regions of Turkey, demanded that access to these areas be granted to independent national and international observers and called for negotiations to secure a fair and lasting peace. The petition was initially signed by 1,128 academics and grew to 2,020 in the weeks after it was released. Since then, the signatories have suffered from multiple forms of repression, including criminal and administrative investigations, detention, dismissals and revocation of their passports. As of December 2017, more than 400 academics have been dismissed and hundreds of PhD students have lost their scholarships.
The repression is now reaching a new stage as signatories have been brought before the Istanbul High Criminal Court. Hundreds have been charged with spreading “terrorist propaganda” under Article 7(2) of Turkey’s Anti-Terror Law, which could mean up to seven-and-a-half years in prison. While the indictment has been levelled at the academics as a group, the hearings are individual and distributed over several months. The first hearings were held simultaneously in three different rooms of the Çağlayan courthouse on 5 and 7 December. They offered an insight not just into the deep flaws of the justice system, but also illustrated the determination of the academics to face this new ordeal with firmness and solidarity.
The week started with a day of events organised by the Academics for Peace co-ordination and the education trade union Eğitim-Sen in Istanbul. Meanwhile, several demonstrations and statements of support were released from Europe and the US. On the first day of the hearings, a press statement was organised in front of the courtroom. Besides the defendants, dozens of academics and several international observers were present. While only a few could attend the hearings due to the limited capacity of the rooms, numerous academics and students spent their days at the courthouse to support their colleagues.
The succession of hearings gave an insight into the diversity of the signatories of the petition. PhD students, young lecturers and well-known professors were brought to the court, while a few defendants now settled abroad could not attend. Although all the defendants in that week’s hearing came from two universities in Istanbul, many did not even know each other and greeted their alleged partners in crime at the doors of the courtroom, united by the smallest possible common denominator and the only ground for their criminal charge: their signature on the peace petition.
Lawyers had no difficulties in demonstrating the inconsistencies and blatant errors in the indictment. Incomplete or erroneous references to European cases related to freedom of expression, press articles and governmental statements were provided in lieu of evidence, mistranslated terms in English or Kurdish were among the mistakes most often quoted by the defendants’ lawyers. Beyond that, they insisted that the indictment was irrelevant and criticised the absence of any concrete evidence to support the charge of terror propaganda. Lawyers also reminded the court of the national and international legal texts, conventions and jurisprudence protecting freedom of expression. They underlined that critical thinking was essential to academic work and that by criticising the state, the defendants had behaved as one would expect of intellectuals. While a majority of academics indicated that they would not offer a statement at this first hearing, some presented a defence that followed the arguments of their lawyers, sometimes providing additional information on their personal and/or academic motivations for signing the petition and sharing how absurd they thought the case was. All the cases were adjourned to a later date, stretching from late December until May.
While the case the Academics for Peace sheds light on the persecution of critical scholars in Turkey, not only academic freedom is on trial there. Indeed, the first hearings gave an opportunity to the academics and their lawyers to remind the court of the context in which the peace petition was released: strong statements recalled how violence escalated in the Kurdish region of Turkey after the June 2015 elections and illustrated the impact of state repressions on civilians in the region — endless curfews, unlawful killing of children, corpses abandoned in the streets or kept in refrigerators, destruction of whole neighbourhoods in Cizre or Diyarbakir. Quoting the reports issued by national and international organisations, including the UN, these defences brought to the forefront the realities behind the words of the petition. Beyond this, some lawyers and defendants used the concepts of state violence, discrimination and racism to contextualise the last few years in the longer history of repression targeting the Kurdish region. As in many of the ongoing political trials in Turkey, the hearings turned into a denunciation of the multiple levels of state repression. The prosecutor and judges showed little reaction to these harsh critiques. Obviously, there was little to object to: like many journalists on trial, the academics were charged for making public what was true and ignored by none.
Finally, these hearings revealed yet again that the justice system in Turkey is at a breaking point. As the prosecutor who authored the indictment remained invisible, it was obvious that the judges and prosecutors had little familiarity with the cases. Appearing increasingly weary of the repetitive character of the hearings, they made a compulsive and ostensible use of their phones while the lawyers and defendants were talking. While the lawyers emphasised that the unique indictment should have resulted in a unique, collective trial, this demand was rejected by the court and a large part of the hearings were devoted to copy-pasting the charges and defences for each of the defendants.
Joining the long list of criminal cases against citizens who dared to express their opposition to the government and its policies, the trial of the Academics for Peace is a new illustration of the political use and abuse of justice to silent all critical voices in Turkey.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
19 Dec 2017 | Mapping Media Freedom, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96575″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]This article is also available in Italian from Index partner Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso – Transeuropa
Kurdish reporter Nedim Türfent has been sentenced to 8 years and 9 months in prison on charges of “membership of a terrorist organisation,” with the court remaining deaf to substantial evidence of witness torture.
“They said they would show the ‘power of the Turk,’” lawyer Harika Karataş said after Türfent, a Dicle News Agency reporter, was sentenced on Dec. 15.
Karataş was referring to the story that led Türfent to being harassed and threatened by the authorities in his hometown of Yüksekova, in southeastern Turkey. In the footage Türfent revealed, a commander of special forces can be seen shouting “You will see the power of the Turk” to a group of detainees handcuffed behind their backs and forced to lie facing down on the ground.
“They whitewashed torture. They considered journalism to be a crime,” Karataş said.
Türfent’s case has stirred outrage among many of Turkey’s beleaguered independent journalists, made worse by the fact that 20 witnesses out of the 21 who appeared in court declared that their police testimonies were collected under torture and duress. These revelations turned the small courtroom in the remote eastern city of Hakkâri into a focal point, with press freedom facing another serious test far from the public eye.
Türfent, who had been under detention for more than 19 months before the hearing, was charged with both “membership of a terrorist organization” and “terror propaganda.” Dismissing repeated allegations of torture and ill-treatment, the prosecutor based his case on the witnesses’ initial testimonies to police and sought to convict Türfent for the former crime, which demands a higher sentence.
Still, defense lawyers and Türfent’s colleagues were cautiously optimistic before the fifth and final hearing of the case on Dec. 15. Twenty witnesses rejected the testimonies included in the indictment and only one witness upheld her testimony. The defense also brought credible evidence of contradictions in her testimony – enough to raise doubts about the veracity of her claims. Türfent himself also previously described to the court the death threats he received from the police when he was detained. The defense stressed that there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict Türfent on charges of “membership”.
However, the panel of judges thought otherwise. Announcing the verdict, the head judge said they had dismissed some of the initial testimonies but decided to retain others, regardless of the confessions that they had been taken under torture and duress. To justify the sentence, the judge referred cases to testimonies of witnesses who were minors during their interrogation and whose testimonies were not taken in the presence of a prosecutor and either a psychologist or pedagogue, as required by the Law on the Protection of Children.
‘A message to all journalists’
“No legal action was taken against the police, despite 20 witnesses confessing to having testified against Türfent under police pressure. One of the witnesses even told the court during the first hearing that police pulled two of his teeth with pliers in order to get a testimony from him,” Fatih Polat, the editor-in-chief of the left-wing daily Evrensel, told Index on Censorship. “Eventually, Türfent was handed a sentence [with terms] arranged by [the police].”
Polat, who has vocally criticized the case in a bid to draw wider public attention, said the verdict was aimed at intimidating the entire media community. “This verdict is also a message aiming to tell everyone doing journalism in this country: ‘Think carefully before you decide what you report on,’” Polat said.
“If we don’t stand against this unlawful ruling strongly enough today, we shouldn’t be surprised when the same happens to us tomorrow.”
Diyarbakır-based journalist Mahmut Oral, who monitored the trial on behalf of the Journalists’ Union of Turkey (TGS), also said that the case was a symbolic one. “Nedim worked in a difficult region during difficult times,” Oral said, referring to the military siege and curfews in Yüksekova.
Oral noted that the court didn’t act to investigate neither witnesses testimonies of torture nor Türfent’s account of ill-treatment when he was taken under custody. His legal complaints had been dismissed by prosecutors.
“This decision may well be legal for the Turkish justice system, but it is not a conscientious one,” Oral said. “This is why I consider this decision as an attempt to attack the rights of journalism.”
Decision to be appealed
The damage that a conviction would cause to journalism in the region and nationwide was repeatedly emphasised by Türfent himself. Türfent, who made his defense statements in Kurdish, has expressed no regrets about his work.
“I have written more than a thousand reports over seven years,” the young reporter said. “Some may not please the government. But it is not lawful to try to discredit these reports by imprisoning journalists.”
Türfent said he was now considered persona non grata for breaking his report on the special forces commander. “But if had the chance I would write the same report again.”
Türfent’s lawyers will now appeal the ruling at an appeals court outside of Hakkari, in the nearby province of Erzurum. They also plan to apply to the Constitutional Court against Türfent’s “long and unjustified detention”.
In his acclaimed novel A Season in Hakkâri, author Ferit Edgü describes Hakkari as a “mountain-top close to the sky.” The province is well-known for its bitter, inhospitable winter, and this winter now seems to have engulfed all rights and freedoms. “We want justice to wake up from its winter sleep,” Türfent said during his defense at court. Perhaps his wish will be echoed across the country.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Mapping Media Freedom” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-times-circle” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Since 24 May 2014, Mapping Media Freedom’s team of correspondents and partners have recorded and verified more than 3,700 violations against journalists and media outlets.
Index campaigns to protect journalists and media freedom. You can help us by submitting reports to Mapping Media Freedom.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”2″ element_width=”12″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1513935154207-dc7c9f88-877b-4″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Dec 2017 | Belgium, France, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, News and features, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”81193″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Commercial pressures on the media? Anti-establishment critics have a ready-made answer: of course, journalists are hostage to the whims of corporate owners, advertisers and sponsors. Of course, they cannot independently cover issues which these powers consider “inconvenient”. Actually such suspicion is widely shared: In France, according to the 2017 La Croix barometer on media credibility, 58% of public opinion consider that journalists “are not really able to resist pressures from financial interests”.
The issue is not new. In 1944 when he founded the French “newspaper of record”, Le Monde, Hubert Beuve-Méry fought to guarantee its independence from political parties but also from what he called “the wall of money”. “Freedom of the press belongs to the one who owns one”, New Yorker media critic A.J. Liebling famously said. However, “while media academics have long looked at the question of commercial pressure, ownership (…) in shaping coverage”, writes Anya Schiffrin in a 2017 CIMA report on “captured media” press freedom groups’ focus had been mostly on the governments’ responsibilities and on criminal non-state actors.
In June 2016 Reporters Without Boarders made a splash with its report on oligarchs in the media. Proprietors’ interventions may have indeed a very negative impact on journalism’s proclaimed commitment to report the news without fear or favour. Pressures are particularly acute when the media are owned by conglomerates who dabble in other economic sectors. In France, for instance, a military aircraft manufacturer (Dassault), the luxury industry leader (LVMH), telecoms giants (SFR, Free), a powerful public works and telecoms company (Bouygues) directly own key media companies.
Ownership provides a powerful lever to influence media contents. Cases of direct intervention or of journalists’ self-censorship are not exceptional, even if they are often difficult to prove. In France, Vincent Bolloré, owner, among others, of TV channel Canal+, has been regularly accused of using his powers to determine content. It led the French Senate’s culture commission to invite him to a hearing in June 2016, but he firmly denied all allegations of censorship.
In other European countries, the landscape is much clearer. In Turkey, during the June 2013 Gezi Park events, major TV stations failed to report police repression live. They chose instead to broadcast animal documentaries, for which they were rewarded with the nickname of “penguin media”. In fact, they turned into “proxy censors” for Erdogan’s government who had the power to determine their economic fate by rewarding them -or not- with public works contracts or financial favors. The worst of the worst flourishes in some former communist eastern European countries where major media outlets have been snatched by oligarchs allied with political parties or even, allegedly, with criminal organisations.
Big companies may be ruthless. Advertising budgets can be cut when a media covers “inconvenient news”. In November 2017, according to satirical weekly Le Canard enchainé, Bernard Arnault, the boss of LVMH (luxury products, owner of Le Parisien and Les Echos), canceled his advertising budget in Le Monde until the end of the year after his name appeared in the Paradise Papers global investigation, which named people who had offshore accounts in tax havens. LVMH denied it was cutting all advertising in the paper, adding that it was currently “reflecting on its advertisement policy in classical media”.
The unraveling of the legacy media’s business model has increased their vulnerability to outside pressures. Advertising money is shrinking, therefore increasing the temptation to dismantle what was presented as an impassable wall between “church and state”. Differences between advertising and the news are also being diluted into ambiguous advertorials, sponsored content and “native advertising”.
Such pressures however are not automatic. “Suffering pressures does not mean ceding to them”, says Hervé Béroud, director general of leading all-news TV channel BFMTV. Due to the way journalism actually works, the freedom to report, even against the owners’ interests, cannot be systematically crushed. In fact, as a former editor in chief of Belgian newspapers and magazines I was confronted with radically different forms of “advice” from my successive owners. While some were very protective of editorial independence others were blunter and ready to compromise with advertisers’ “wishes”. The existence of journalists’ societies, co-owners of the so-called “ethical capital” of the paper, provided some protection, but much was left to individual wrestling between the editor and the proprietor.
At the end, this issue comes down to defining who “owns freedom of information”. In 1993 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that “the owner of the right is the citizen, who also has the related right to demand that the information supplied by journalists be conveyed truthfully, in the case of news, and honestly, in the case of opinions, without outside interference by either the public authorities or the private sector”. A far cry from A.J. Liebling’s sentence…[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Survey: How free is our press?” use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F12%2Fsurvey-free-press%2F|title:Take%20our%20survey||”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-pencil-square-o” color=”black” background_style=”rounded” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
This survey aims to take a snapshot of how financial pressures are affecting news reporting. The openMedia project will use this information to analyse how money shapes what gets reported – and what doesn’t – and to advocate for better protections and freedoms for journalists who have important stories to tell.
More information[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/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:1513691969537-ee852610-8cb0-8″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
