12 Jun 12 | Uncategorized
Sir John Major has said Rupert Murdoch threatened him that he would no longer support him unless the former prime minister changed his European policy.
During a firm and composed morning of evidence at the Leveson Inquiry in which he criticised the media baron, Major recalled the February 1997 meeting with Murdoch as “not something I would easily forget”.
“He made it clear that he disliked my European policies which he wished me to change,” Major said. “If not, his papers could not and would not support the Conservative government.”
“There was no question of changing policies,” Major added.
Murdoch told the Inquiry in April he had “never asked for anything directly from a politician”.
“Certainly he never asked for anything directly from me but he was not averse to pressing for policy changes,” Major said of the proprietor.
“I haven’t talked about this conversation at any stage over the past 15 years but now I am under oath,” he added.
Major also denied Kelvin MacKenzie’s anecdote that the former Sun editor had threatened to pour a “large bucket of shit” over Major during a phone call in 1992 about how the paper would cover the Black Wednesday crisis. Major said the story had acquired a “mythical” status.
“I dare say it wasn’t an especially productive call,” he added.
Major said it came as “no surprise” to him when the Murdoch-owned Sun switched its allegiance to support the Labour party ahead of the 1997 general election. Given its criticism of his government from 1992 to 1997, it would have been “difficult”, Major said, for the paper to support the Conservative party.
The former Tory prime minister made a veiled warning against currying favour with Murdoch. While he said he recognised the media baron’s “enormous skill as businessman” in building up broadcaster Sky and boosting newspapers such as the Times and Sunday Times, he said the “sheer scale” of his supposed influence was a “an unattractive facet in British national life.”
He added that he believed parts of Murdoch’s media empire had “lowered the general quality” of the British media. “I think that is a loss,” Major said.
Major stressed more than once the need to raise the standards of the worst excesses of the British press to the standards operated by the good. “The bad is just a cancer in the journalistic body, not the journalistic body as a whole,” he said, attacking culprits of dealing in caricatures and taking “a particular point and stretch[ing] it beyond what is reasonable”.
He added that editors and proprietors should bear the responsibility for wrongdoing, arguing that the Inquiry was taking place because “those who could have ensured proper behaviour have not done so.” He said reporters operated “within a culture” and found it “difficult to believe” that editors and proprietors do not know how stories are obtained.
Major conceded he was at times “much too sensitive” about what was written about him in the press, but said he was not appearing at the Inquiry to complain. “I’ve long since moved on from that,” he said.
He added that he did not inherit the “natural affinity with the press” that his predecessor Baroness Thatcher had earned, noting that her right-wing views appealed to national newspaper editors and proprietors, and that she admired “buccaneering businessmen” who were prepared to take risks.
The Inquiry continues this afternoon with evidence from Labour leader Ed Miliband and deputy leader Harriet Harman.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
19 Apr 12 | Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia, Index Index, minipost
The European Parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of a human rights resolution which calls for new rules to monitor internet censorship under autocratic regimes yesterday. The report’s author Labour MEP Richard Howit recommended an export ban on the technology that can be used to censor or block websites and monitor mobile communications. The reports calls for a coherent European Union policy on the implications technology can have on human rights. The MEP’s report also recommended the implementation of a “human rights tzar” in each of the 130 delegations of the union, who would be responsible for all issues relating to human rights.
18 Nov 11 | Uncategorized
In an Afghanistan prison, one woman is serving a 12-year sentence for being the victim of a rape. Another woman is serving time for running away from 10 years of abuse from her husband. These women want to tell their stories, and in late 2010, they were given the chance to speak out in an EU funded film. But post-production, the film has been blocked by the EU, leaving these women with the weight of their stories, and no forum for them to be heard.
With the help of the European Union, London based film maker Clementine Malpas set out to expose the plight of women convicted of “moral crimes” in Afghanistan. After working on the film for three months, gaining the trust and support of the Afghan women interviewed, Malpas was told the film “In-Justice: The story of Afghan women,” would never be released.
50 per cent of women imprisoned in the country are there for moral crimes, namely running away from home, or having sex outside of marriage, including rape as well as adultery and consensual sex outside wedlock, and Malpas wanted to broadcast this issue to the world.
Initially, the partnership between Malpas and the EU was to create a documentary film which followed a female politician through her election campaign, right up to the election date, but this plan fell through. Malpas presented the EU with other options, and the concept for the film on moral crimes was approved.
Malpas said: “I got into documentaries to show human rights abuses, to shine a light on awful situations, and tell the world what is going on, so I was glad to do the film about the women in prison. It’s something I feel passionately about.”
In the film, two women, imprisoned for moral crimes explain how they ended up in prison. 19-year-old Gulnaz, who was particularly passionate about having her story told, was arrested after her cousin’s husband tied her hands and feet together and raped her.
26-year-old Farida fled from an abusive husband who had chased her around their house with an iron rod, and threatened to urinate in her mouth. She was arrested whilst staying with the family of another man. Police said they could tell she had committed adultery, because she was not a virgin — but Farida had been married for ten years, and had a baby.
Both women gave their consent for the documentary to be made, both on film, and in writing. Gulnaz said “I have no other option, you have to tell my story. I want everyone to know that I am innocent.” But the EU have cited concerns over the safety of the women as their reason for blocking the film.
Malpas said: “After making the film and beginning distribution, I was told this film is never going to be broadcast. It’s such an important story. I really wanted to get the message out. It would be even more powerful if the story comes from these women, rather than from me talking about them.”
Heather Barr, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch, agreed that it was essential to give these women a chance to discuss what has happened to them.
“It sounds to me like an overwhelming majority of these women in prison haven’t committed crimes under the penal code. These women are invisible. People don’t know that this issue exists. It’s important to talk about this – these women are imprisoned for being victims of abuse.”
She added: “These imprisonments tell a story about how little progress has been made since the fall of the Taliban, and it shows the terrible state the justice system is in.”
Malpas explained that the EU’s decision not to release the film had been a blessing in disguise — the film, and therefore the subject, is getting more press coverage and interest than it would have, had it been approved.
“For me, it’s not about the EU blocking the film, it’s about the story getting out there,” she says
An EU representative told Associated Press:
“The EU decided to withdraw the film only because there were very real concerns for the safety of the women it portrayed. Their welfare was and continues to be the paramount consideration in this matter.”
Malpas explained that since the press coverage began, she has received widespread support. MP’s and MEP’s from around the country have written to the film-maker advocating the documentary, and the issue has been discussed in European Parliament.
But despite that, Malpas doesn’t believe the film will ever be released. She said:
“There’s a hold on this film – and it’s never going to be let go.”
