Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will take to the airwaves in Belarus this afternoon, the home of Europe’s last dictatorship.
In an address to the people of Belarus, Clegg will vow to stand up to the tyranny on our doorstep. In an article for the Independent today, he commented:
“Belarus is trapped in the past: Europe’s shameful secret, right on our doorstep. So I’m determined we speak out and up the pressure on the regime. When popular uprisings exploded across North Africa and the Middle East, the UK took a stand and took it quickly. We will show the same leadership for Belarus.”
He described Belarus:
“Imagine a country where torture and intimidation are reportedly common place. Where peaceful protesters are locked up –– sent to maximum security prison colonies— and free-thinking journalists are harassed. Where a president can rig election-after-election, despite running the economy into the ground. Where most people are too scared to speak out and the death penalty remains.
After his speech in Warsaw, in which he is expected to praise the work of the Free Belarus Now campaign (supported by Index on Censorship) the Liberal Democrat leader will take part in an interview with European Radio for Belarus.
As Belarus’s Central Bank devalues the ruble, the European Union has expanded sanctions and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) invokes human rights mechanism. Mike Harris reports
(more…)
This article was originally published in July 2010
Proposed bans on face coverings are a reflection not on Islam, but on European insecurity, says Myriam Francois-Cerrah
(more…)
With a crushing majority of 40 in favour, 0 against and 5 abstentions, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament has voted against a European Commission proposal to introduce mandatory EU-wide web blocking. This comes as a result of a campaign by European Digital Rights, supported by organisations such as the German Association of Child Abuse Victims against Web Blocking and the European ISP Association.
In the year since the original proposal was launched, parliamentarians have grown increasingly concerned by the lack of vision of the European Commission regarding the proposal’s aims. At meeting after meeting, commission representatives and the commissioner herself were unable to provide any evidence that blocking would serve a purpose, they were not even able to be clear on what blocking was meant to achieve.
They started by saying that blocking would “disrupt” commercial child-porn networks, until their own research showed that this is a small and diminishing problem. Then they said it was to stop accidental access, until they were unable to show this was an actual problem or that blocking would help. Finally, they said that it would help victims psychologically — although any policy which leaves abuse images on the internet is hardly likely to do this. The permanent retreat into ever-more facile arguments eventually started grating on parliamentarians who, like the citizens they represent, deserve better. A restriction on the right to communication cannot be based on soundbites and gut reactions.
At the same time, parliamentarians became increasingly aware of the damage that existing blocking systems are doing to both child protection and fundamental rights in those countries where it is already imposed. They saw how countries like Denmark and Sweden create blocking lists outside the rule of law, sometimes leaving whole websites abroad blocked but with no way of even knowing — the accusatory and defamatory blocking page being shown only to people in the countries doing the blocking.
The blocking approach in Denmark, Sweden and the UK breaks every element of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is neither “necessary” nor is it “prescribed by law” in those countries. How can child abuse material have such a low priority that its regulation is the only crime which does not require countermeasures to be laid down in law? Worse still, once the blocking veil is cast thoughtlessly and lawlessly over the allegedly illegal sites abroad and over government inaction to have the websites removed, countries promptly lose the will to take even minimal measures to address the crime. A Danish police official, for example, said in a speech to the German Federal Parliament that they don’t see any need to send reports of these serious crimes to the United States or Russia. Which other serious crime would be treated in this way? Why does blocking destroy the will of governments to treat online child abuse with the seriousness it deserves? Why would child protection organisations ever dream of supporting such a counterproductive measure?
This is the essence of the text agreed by the European Parliament’s Committee on the evening of 14 February. The text demands effective action against the crimes — it demands supervision of the member states’ efforts through a yearly report on their activities. It removes the obligation on member states to introduce blocking and places new measures on member states that insist on blocking in order to at least move in the direction of respect for basic fundamental rights. It chooses concrete child protection measures over symbols, excuses and failure. 14 February… a day to start loving the European Parliament.
Read the European Digital Rights report on web blocking here
Joe McNamee works as Advocacy Coordinatory for European Digital Rights in Brussels (EDRi). He works on issues related to privacy, cybercrime, intellectual property, freedom of information/communication and related topics.