Concern over the deteriorating state of press freedom in Turkey and its impact on upcoming Nov. 1 parliamentary elections have prompted a coalition of international free expression groups to undertake an emergency press freedom mission to the country, the International Press Institute (IPI) announced.
From Oct. 19 to 21, mission participants will meet in Istanbul and Ankara with journalists, political representatives and foreign diplomats to demonstrate solidarity with their colleagues in the news media and to focus attention in Turkey and abroad on the impact the growing pressure on independent media is likely to have on the election.
The unprecedented mission will bring together representatives from eight leading international press freedom and free expression groups, including IPI, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the European Federation of Journalists, Article 19, Index on Censorship and the Ethical Journalism Network.
The mission will conclude with a press conference at 13:00 on Oct. 21 at the offices of the Journalists Association of Turkey (TGC), at Türkocağı Cad. No: 1, Cağaloğlu, Istanbul.
Since late August, when President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called a repeat of June elections after lawmakers were unable to form a government, Turkey has witnessed a series of increasingly troubling incidents targeting journalists and media. Among others, they include physical attacks on journalists and media outlets; raids on media outlets and seizures of publications; threatening rhetoric directed at journalists; and the increasing use of criminal insult and anti-terrorism laws to chill independent reporting.
Next week’s mission will focus on these incidents, as well as the ongoing imprisonment of numerous journalists in Turkey and the deportations of foreign journalists, particularly those
attempting to cover deadly clashes with the outlawed Kurdistan’s Workers Party (PKK) and Turkey’s participation in the international fight against the Islamic State group.
The mission comes as satellite and online television providers have accepted prosecutors’ demands to stop carrying the signals of broadcasters critical of the government.
“The upcoming election is likely to decide Turkey’s direction for the coming decade and its outcome will have far-reaching implications for Turkey, its neighbours, the West and the wider world,” IPI Executive Director Barbara Trionfi said. “IPI and its partners are undertaking this emergency press freedom mission to Turkey to stand in solidarity with our colleagues under pressure, and to demand that voters be allowed to make an informed decision about their future and that the media be allowed to report freely to give voters the information they need to do so.”
The deterioration of press freedom in Turkey represents the culmination of a years-long trend documented earlier this year in an IPI Special Report on the country, “Democracy at Risk” (also available in Turkish).
For more information about the Oct. 21 Press Conference at 13:00, please contact the Journalists Association of Turkey (TGC) by telephone at +90 (0 212) 513 83 00 or via email at [email protected].
Frank La Rue (above). Credit: Janwikifoto/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons)
Freedom of expression is more in danger today than in 2008 because of “the right to be forgotten”, the United Nation’s former free expression rapporteur Frank La Rue told an internet conference.
At the event La Rue told Index: “The emphasis on the ‘right to be forgotten’ in a way is a reduction of freedom of expression, which I think is a mistake. People get excited because they can correct the record on many things but the trend is towards limiting people’s access to information which I think is a bad trend in general.”
La Rue, who was the UN’s rapporteur between 2008 and 2014, addressed lawyers, academics and researchers at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in London, in particular covering the May 2014 “right to be forgotten” ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union, and its impact on free speech following a Spanish case involving Mario Costeja Gonzalez.
The Google Spain vs. Mario Costeja Gonzalez case involved the Spanish citizen challenging Google and a Spanish newspaper in the courts to remove articles that appeared on the search engine relating to a foreclosure notice on his house. Gonzalez won the case against Google, but not the newspaper, which has now set a precedent for users to challenge search engines to de-list information.
Frank La Rue (right) spoke at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in London (Photo: Max Goldbart for Index on Censorship)
On the ruling, La Rue said: “I would want to know the past. It is very relevant information. Everyone should be on the record and we have to question who is making these decisions anyway?” LaRue’s main issue with the “right to be forgotten” is the fact that a private company can have such a say on information being accessed by the public. “The state is accountable to the people of a nation so should be accountable here. Not private companies and especially not those with commercial interests,” he added.
While in London for the conference, he also told Index on Censorship there were “many reasons” for this reduction in freedom of expression: “One is because a breach of privacy has a chilling effect so people are more worried about that, but also there are more and more regulations being enacted in many countries which worry me. Politicians are getting scared of the power of the internet because the internet has made the world more knowledgeable so there is an increase in the way the authorities are trying to reduce criticisms.”
La Rue, now executive director of the charity Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Europe, felt that commercial organisations such as Google have been given too much power.
Ray Corrigan, senior lecturer in maths and computing at the Open University, said: “We carry the greatest tracking device around with us absolutely willingly, our phones. We don’t think about the costs.”
A UK Supreme Court judgment today has overturned an injunction preventing publication of the musician James Rhodes’ memoir Instrumental.
The case known as OPO v MLA was brought by Rhodes’s ex-wife, who claimed that publication of the book would cause psychological harm to their son, who suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyspraxia and dysgraphia. The memoir, to be published by Canongate, is an account of James Rhodes’s traumatic childhood in which he was the victim of sexual abuse and its impact on his adult life. He recounts the vital role of music and how it saved him from self-harm, addiction and suicide.
The High Court struck out the proceedings, arguing that there was no precedent for an order preventing a person from publishing their life story for fear of its causing psychiatric harm to a vulnerable person. But a temporary injunction was granted by the Court of Appeal until the case came to trial, on the grounds of an obscure Victorian case Wilkinson v Downton, in which a man who played a practical joke on the wife of a pub landlord was found to be guilty of the intentional infliction of mental distress.
English PEN, Index on Censorship and Article 19 intervened in the appeal at the Supreme Court as third parties, arguing that the Court of Appeal’s decision would have a chilling effect on the production and publication of serious works of public interest and concern.
In a robust defence of freedom of expression, the court ruled: ‘The only proper conclusion is that there is every justification for the publication. A person who has suffered in the way that the appellant has suffered, and has struggled to cope with the consequences of his suffering in the way that he has struggled, has the right to tell the world about it.’
The Supreme Court criticised the Court of Appeal’s ruling in its judgment, stating that the terms of the injunction were flawed and voicing its concern about the curtailment of freedom of speech:
‘Freedom to report the truth is a basic right to which the law gives a very high level of protection. It is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which speech which is not deceptive, threatening or possibly abusive, could give rise to liability in tort for wilful infringement of another’s right to personal safety. The right to report the truth is justification in itself. That is not to say that the right of disclosure is absolute, for a person may owe a duty to treat information as private or confidential. But there is no general law prohibiting the publication of facts which will cause distress to another, even if that is the person’s intention.’
‘This an important judgment overturning an injunction that not only prevented the public from reading a powerful book of wide interest, but posed a significant threat to freedom of expression more broadly. It’s encouraging to see the Supreme Court’s clear and unequivocal support for free speech,’ said Jo Glanville, Director, English PEN.
‘The decision of the Supreme Court is an important verdict for free expression. In particular we commend the court’s recognition that freedom to report the truth is a basic right protected in law and its reassertion of the right to produce material that others may find offensive,’ said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO, Index on Censorship.
Last October, 20 leading writers, including David Hare, Michael Frayn, William Boyd and Tom Stoppard wrote to the Daily Telegraph to say that they were ‘gravely concerned about the impact of this judgment on the freedom to read and write in Britain’.
They added: ‘The public is being denied the opportunity of reading an enlightening memoir, while publishers, authors and journalists may face censorship on similar grounds in the future.’
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak,
The Prime Minister of Malaysia,
Office of The Prime Minister,
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 Putrajaya, MALAYSIA
19 May 2015
Dear Prime Minister Najib,
We, the undersigned international organisations, urge the Malaysian authorities to drop charges against cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Haque “Zunar”, who is currently facing a record-breaking nine charges under the Sedition Act for comments made on the social media network Twitter, for which – if convicted – he could face up to 43 years in prison.
We also call upon the Malaysian authorities to repeal the Sedition Act, a law that is used as a tool to stifle legitimate debate and dissent. In 2012, Prime Minister Najib Razak made a commitment to repeal the Sedition Act. However, following the most recent election, he has instead extended the Sedition Act’s reach and strengthened the penalties for infringement in a move we believe is intended to help maintain his party’s hold on power.
Freedom of expression is an essential part of any democratic society and the Malaysian authorities must protect this right for all, including those who are critical of government. Rather than safeguard this right, the authorities have intensified their crackdown on journalists, writers, activists, students, academics and artists. We, the undersigned international organisations, condemn these violations and urge the international community to support Zunar and everyone in Malaysia to speak freely in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Sincerely,
ARTICLE 19
English PEN
Index on Censorship
Media Legal Defence Initiative
PEN International
CC:
Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney General
Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Khalid bin Abu Bakar, Inspector General of Police
