07 Jun 13 | Middle East and North Africa
With the 14 June presidential election approaching, Iran’s leaders are moving to prevent the outburst of protest that followed the disputed 2009 poll by tightening access to the web and silencing “negative” news. Raha Zahedpour reports
Iran’s state television this week held the second of three presidential debates. Unlike the 2009 debates, no one-on-one debating was allowed. In these debates, resembling game shows, candidates have less than five minutes to talk about their policies on different issues, and other candidates were chosen at random to question the speaker. Candidates were then left with very limited time to conclude after the end of questions.
The eight qualified candidates could not escape Iran’s strict censorship during their campaigns. Iranian state TV censored reformist candidate Mohammad Reza Aref’s speech in a programme broadcast for the Iranian diaspora on 26 May. The recording was halted and not resumed.
In another programme on the domestic Channel One, conservative candidate Mohsen Rezaei was censored for talking about how unemployment devastated a family who lost their children in the war, and were led to suicidal thoughts as a result of pressures from the economic crisis and inflation.
State television censored documentaries made by the campaigns of each candidate — including Saeed Jalili, Ayatollah Khamenei’s favoured candidate — showing that even a favourite could not escape the sharp blades of censorship.
Iran carefully vetted the candidates in this year’s race: Hashemi Rafsanjani and Rahim Mashaei were disqualified from the upcoming presidential election by Iran’s Guardian Council. Hashemi Rafsanjani, 78, was dropped from the race for being too old. Mashaei was disqualified because he promotes nationalism and nationalist Islam — despite being a part of hard-liners faction.
Even before the election’s candidates were announced, Iran’s ruling elite moved to slow internet connections, blocked access to Gmail accounts, and clamped down on circumvention tools. All over the country, Iranians are struggling to access social media, or even check their email.
Authorities have also tightened up web censorship — censoring even influential political figures close to the government. A blog belonging to one of Rafsanji’s advisors was blocked recently. The move raised eyebrows, because Hashemi Rafsanji is key revolutionary figure, a former president, a former head of Parliament and the current chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran.
Iran also shut down sites aligned to presidential hopeful Efandiar Rahim Mashaei.
Meanwhile, Ahmadi Moghadam, the chief commander of Police, said that the authorities would not allow any distractions around the election. Following the announcement, jailed journalists and bloggers who were released after being imprisoned and sentenced after the 2009 uprising were arrested once more. Former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi are still under house arrest.
Iran’s press has also faced enormous challenges in reporting on the election. The ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance invited journalists to a seminar about what could be reported. Officials emphasised that “negative news” should not be published. Subsequently, some papers received official notices for their content. The websites of reformist newspapers Mardom Saalaary and Bahar were blocked, even though print editions of the newspapers continued to be distributed
In light of restrictions, rights organisations have cast doubt on the election’s freedom. In a 24 May statement Human Rights Watch asked, “How can Iran hold free elections when opposition leaders are behind bars and people can’t speak freely?”
Raha Zahedpour is a journalist and researcher living in London. She writes under a pseudonym
03 Jun 13 | News and features, Uncategorized
Calling for a transformation in the approach to global development that includes a larger role for freedom of expression, the United Nations’ High Level Panel of Eminent Persons released its Post-2015 Development Agenda report, Milana Knezevic writes.
The panel was tasked with crafting recommendations to build on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), which expire in 2015.
Freedom of expression is widely acknowledged within the global development community as being crucial for states to develop and prosper. All citizens, regardless of background, must be able to have their voice heard in civil and political society and be able to hold those in power to account.
The MDGs failed to include freedom of expression as a central pillar for development. It appears the members of the panel were determined to rectify this omission right from the start of the Post-2015 process. The report – and its recommendations – was the result of a nine-month consultation process that included input from indigenous peoples, migrants, women’s groups and others often excluded from the global development debate, in addition to thousands of civil society groups and businesses from around the world.
The panel is calling for five transformative shifts to drive the new development agenda: ‘Leave no one behind’, ‘Put sustainable development at the core’, ‘Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth’, ‘Build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all’ and ‘Forge a new global partnership’. The importance of freedom of expression, a free media, participation and government transparency and accountability are key points in the report.
The panel also identified 12 clear goals that inform and power the five themes. These goals, which include ending poverty and providing quality education, will also serve to help measure and track progress. Goal ten — ‘Ensure good governance and effective institutions’ — spells out strong commitments to freedom of expression. It calls for freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest, and access to independent media and information. Beyond this, it calls for increased public participation in political processes and civic engagement, as well as guarantees regarding peoples’ right to information and access to government data.
“People everywhere want more of a say in how they are governed”, the reports states, and it appears the panel intends to make this a big part of the post-2015 development agenda.
The report makes some interesting suggestions for monitoring implementation, including regional peer reviews and a “revolution in development data”, though it remains to be seen what will happen after its presentation at the UN General Assembly in September.
The fact that freedom of expression is a core value in one of the most important international development documents in the world is a big step in the right direction.
17 May 13 | Azerbaijan News, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
The Eurovision Song Contest gives a platform to some of Europe’s outliers on free expression. Photo: Sander Hesterman (EBU) / Eurovision 2013
Europe will once again be swept away by a sparkly hurricane of techno beats and pompous ballads, kitschy and/or traditional costumes, wind machines, pyrotechnics, heavily accented English, awkward host banter and nul points. Yes, Eurovision takes our breath away in more ways than one.
While first and foremost a showbiz spectacle, if you look beneath the layer of sequins you’ll soon discover the political tinge to the continent’s premier singing competition. From the start in 1956, it was designed as fun way of testing out new broadcasting technology. Those partial to the occasional conspiracy theory would have you believe this was also a convenient cover for pan-European satellite testing during the Cold War, which is why NATO members Turkey and Israel were invited to the party.
With the lifting of the Iron Curtain and the inclusion of the Eastern Bloc in 1990, much was said about the healing, unifying power of the contest. Since then, even more has been said about the tendency of the late arrivals to share their points amongst themselves. The UK, for instance, have been vocal about political, neighbourhood voting being the cause of their recent Eurovision failings, rather than, say, sending entries like this. And while Eurovision, somewhat censoriously, prohibits political songs that has not stopped artists from trying to get their meaningful messages across.
The most famous recent example is perhaps Georgia’s pun-tastic 2009 offering “We Don’t Want To Put In’‘, to be performed at final in — you guessed it — Moscow. They were told to change the song or drop out, and ultimately chose the latter. Krista Siegfrids, Finland’s entrant this year, has warned she might be planting a kiss on one of her female dancers in protest at her country’s failure to adopt equal marriage legislation.
Most significantly, Eurovision gives its entrants prime time access to some 800 million viewers around the world – an unparalleled platform on which to promote their nation should they choose to. Many have jumped at the opportunity, chief among them the land of fire; Azerbaijan. As 2012 hosts, the Aliyev regime poured millions of their significant oil wealth into reforming their international reputation as a repressive hereditary dictatorship. The only problem with this otherwise foolproof plan was that they forcefully evicted people to make room for an ambitious Eurovision-inspired urban renewal project in Baku, attacked journalists covering and speaking up about it, and generally conducted their notoriously human rights abusing business as usual. Not much has changed since the party left town a year ago — only this week, the regime announced they have extended libel laws to online speech ahead of October’s presidential election.
Before that, 2009 hosts Russia attempted to dazzle Europe and the world, with a spectacular stage show in the 25,000 capacity Indoor Olympic Arena in Moscow. However, LGBT activists seized the opportunity to shine the spotlight on the country’s poor record on gay rights, attempting to stage a Slavic-wide Pride parade on the day of the final. In a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression and assembly, the parade was banned. Many of the protesters who showed up anyway, were attacked and arrested. LGBT rights remain poor in Russia, with a 100-year ban on pride parades in Moscow announced only last year. The charm offensive of last year’s singing, dancing, baking grandma entry has this year been followed by the John-and-Yoko-esque ‘What If?‘, which among other gems, contains the lyrics “Together we can make a better place/ On this little island out in space”. Meanwhile, in Russia, internationally funded NGOs have to register as ‘foreign agents’, or risk fines and prison time.
You don’t have to host to be able to host to take full advantage of the promotional platform Eurovision. Like Belarus, you can condense your message to fit the 3-minute performance slot. In 2011, the country known as Europe’s last dictatorship sent Anastasiya Vinnikova to perform the subtly named “I Love Belarus“. Somehow, it didn’t progress to the final. Maybe the rest of Europe had some trouble reconciling the country described in the song, with its “fields full of gold” and “free, friendly and young people”, with the country where you’re put in prison for pointing out that your repressive dictator is, well, a dictator.
Also in the running this year is Hungary, the country with some of the most draconian press regulation on the continent. There’s Ukraine, where the former prime minister is serving a seven-year jail sentence for what is widely recognised as politically motivated charges. In Italy, the final will be broadcast on public broadcaster RAI, one half of the TV duopoly that poses a big threat to the country’s media plurality. In Greece, financial woes have also had a pretty detrimental effect on freedom of expression. Bulgaria’s web of cosy relationships between authorities and media leaves the country without an accurate picture of itself.
Yes, Eurovision is first and foremost one of the biggest parties in the world. However, as you’re watching the spectacle unfold on Saturday, spare a thought for the Europeans who are not as free to express themselves as their fellow countrymen on stage in Malmo.
15 May 13 | Azerbaijan News, Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia
Index on Censorship and partner organizations have strongly condemned moves by Azerbaijan’s government on Tuesday to criminalise online slander and abuse in the run-up to the country’s October Presidential election.
The government claims the move will give it the ability to more effectively oversee the web, the AFP reported. The opposition argues the law will have a chilling effect on free expression and could be used to stifle dissent.
Index on Censorship has previously criticised attempts by governments to control the online activities of their citizens. In the latest development, Index has joined a coalition to strongly condemn a series of repressive legislative amendments that Azerbaijan’s National Assembly adopted Tuesday.
The existing penalties for criminal defamation and insult in the media have been extended to online content, including Azerbaijan’s social networks. The length of “administrative” detention – 15 days without referring to a court has increased to 90 days.
More Azerbaijan >>>
• Azerbaijan’s Facebook fight
• In Depth: The Truth About Azerbaijan (19 Sep, 2012)
• Complete Coverage
