28 Jan 13 | Brazil
Brazil’s Judiciary has approved the creation of a permanent forum about freedom of the press, with the goal of debating court rulings on the subject and preparing judges to making more well-founded decisions.
The Judiciary’s National Forum on Freedom of the Press was created last November through a resolution issued by the National Justice Council (CNJ), a body responsible for supervising Justice’s activities in Brazil and ensuring its independence.
Although the resolution that creates the Forum on Freedom of the Press goes as far back as November, the group has not yet been fully formed. It is hoped it will be ready to convene in early February.
Brazil’s ranking for press freedom went down from 58 last year to 99th in the world this year, according to Reporters Without Borders.
The Forum will follow all cases related to freedom of the press, analysing judges’ actions and aiding with information that could affect court rulings in all jurisdictions. In addition to monitoring cases, they will investigate how similar cases are dealt with in other countries. The plan also involves working with law schools across the country to build a deeper understanding of press freedom.
The idea of creating the Forum came through former President of CNJ and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Carlos Ayres Britto, who retired last December.
The Forum will be formed of nine members, including CNJ counselors, state judges and representatives from different bodies such as the Order of Attorneys of Brazil, the National Newspapers Association, the Brazilian Radio and Television Broadcasters Association and the National Press Association.
Although CNJ has among its duties conducting disciplinary proceedings and applying sanctions against judges and members of the Judiciary, the Forum will not have the power to overturn court rulings concerning the freedom of the press.
“We want to stimulate the discussion about the freedom of the press, by bringing some visions from outside the Judiciary and increasing Justice’s flexibility on this subject”, says the coordinator of the Forum, federal prosecutor Wellington Cabral Saraiva.
He says the Forum was created because CNJ was concerned with some controversial court rulings, which were considered to be a result of a lack of knowledge from judges about how freedom of the press should be regarded in Brazil.
Saraiva exemplifies this by citing court rulings that set enormously expensive reparations against journalists or media companies for defamation or slander, or that obstruct the publishing of specific news — or even books, including biographies.
One high-profile legal case this concerns O Estado de S.Paulo, one of Brazil’s biggest daily newspapers. A court ruling from 2009 prevents Estado of publishing news about a police operation that could incriminate a media mogul from the northeastern state of Maranhão. The newspaper sees this as a clear-cut case of censorship, and is still waiting for a final verdict.
“We do not see this as a general trend in Justice. Some controversial decisions can the taken, but this is normal within the Judiciary. Some legal issues are complex, being open to different rulings”, Saraiva says.
The Forum’s coordinator sees a specific “political culture” as the main threat to press freedom in Brazil, through which some politicians and public agents don’t acknowledge the importance of a free press.
Because of that, Saraiva says, there are so many cases of violence and even murder against journalists and bloggers in Brazil, mainly in areas far from the country’s big cities.
He thinks this “political culture” also reflects on judges’ rulings: “When we consolidate a true democratic culture among politicians and magistrates, we’ll also have a reduction of court rulings that are excessively restrictive.”
25 Jan 13 | Azerbaijan News, Europe and Central Asia
This week the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) did not pass a resolution pressurising Azerbaijan to release or retry its political prisoners. Rebecca Vincent looks at how the body’s lack of pressure further endangers free expression in the country
(more…)
24 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
Governments and courts in 31 countries requested data from 33,634 Google users or accounts in the second half of 2012 according to the company’s latest Transparency Report.
While the number of data requests rose by two per cent — from 20,938 to 21,389 — the proportion of requests Google fully or partially complied with dropped by one point — to 66 per cent.
The US led the pack in number of requests, accounts specified and percentage honoured. American law enforcement agencies issued 8,438 requests for data from 14,791 accounts, 88 per cent of which Google fully or partially complied with. Other countries issuing more than 1,000 requests in late 2012 were India, France, Germany, the UK and Brazil.
The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) compels Google to comply with government requests. This was the company’s first Transparency Report to breakdown the proportion of requests by legal process used.
68 per cent of requests came via subpoenas — without a warrant — under the ECPA. Warrants are not required for access to data more than 180 days old. 22 per cent of requests came with a warrant, and the remaining 10 per cent were uncategorised.
“We believe the US laws should be updated,” William Echikson, Head of Free Expression Policy and PR for EMEA at Google, told Index. “Our users deserve to have their online correspondence and documents afforded the same legal protections from government access as they get for their physical documents.”
According to the report, Google reviews each request to ensure its compliance with “both the spirit and the letter of the law” and sometimes tries to narrow the data requested.
“Debates about government surveillance should start with data,” Echikson added. “Our disclosures are only a tiny sliver of what’s happening on the Internet at large.”
Echikson said he hopes more companies and governments will join Google to increase transparency and keep citizens informed by releasing similar data. Competitors and collaborators alike are doing just that, but to varying degrees and with varying success.
In 2012, Dropbox, LinkedIn and Twitter shared similar statistics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) 2012 report “Who Has Your Back” rates 18 companies on transparency regarding government requests for user data. These ratings take into account whether companies tell their users about government data demands and whether they fight for user privacy in courts and congress. Only Sonic.net, an ISP based in California, earned full stars in each category of EFF’s privacy and transparency report.
Google’s latest Transparency Report does not include content removal requests. Company officials said those numbers will be released separately in several months time.
Brian Pellot is the digital policy adviser at Index.
22 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
In recent weeks, Kazakh authorities closed down almost all independent media, and gave prosecutors new, wider legal powers against free speech. Protests against these latest attacks must go hand-in-hand with the defence of prisoners of conscience such as the poet and writer Aron Atabek, say his family and friends.
They warn that Atabek’s latest sentence — two years of solitary confinement for “insubordination” to prison authorities, on top of the 18 years he is serving for “orchestrating mass disorder” — puts his life in danger.
In mid-December, as Atabek was transferred back to the Arkalyk prison in Kostanai region to serve the two years, his son Askar Aidarkhan wrote to international campaign groups urging them to protest against his ill treatment.
Since being jailed in 2007, Atabek has frequently been deprived of proper food and water, access to fresh air and sunlight, as well as access to sports facilities and writing materials. He has also had manuscripts confiscated.
Atabek became a dissident writer and political activist in Soviet times, and has been a vocal critic of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev since then. In December 1986 he participated in the Zheltoksan demonstration, the first open protest against Soviet dictatorship to be held in Kazakhstan, and afterwards campaigned for the truth about those killed when the security services broke it up.
In 1992, shortly after Kazakhstan became independent, Atabek was given political asylum in Azerbaijan after publishing opposition newspapers. He returned to Kazakhstan in 1996 and since then published novels, plays and poems as well as political articles critical of the government.
Atabek’s 18-year jail sentence was imposed in 2007 after he took up the case of shanty-town dwellers at Shanyrak outside Almaty whose homes were destroyed in a violent, illegal police operation. Twenty-three other activists and shanty-town dwellers were jailed for between one and 14 years on a variety of charges.
Atabek’s family sees a pattern of protest and reaction. In 2007, the shanty-town dwellers resisted the Almaty authorities’ attempts to destroy their community — and Atabek was punished for supporting them. In 2011, oil workers in western Kazakhstan staged nine months of strikes and protests, culminating in the massacre of 16 of them by police at Zhanaozen — and retribution has been visited on politicians and media who highlighted the strikers’ plight.
Askar Aidarkhan, Atabek’s son, has said that “what is happening in Kazakhstan now [in the aftermath of the Zhanaozen massacre] follows on from what happened at Shanyrak”.
Shanyrak became a sanctuary for homeless families during the rapid expansion of Almaty in the early 2000s. It is estimated that when it was destroyed it comprised more than 2000 dwellings with up to 10,000 residents.
The notorious clearance of Shanyrak took shortly after the promulgation on 5 July 2006 of the law “On Amnesty and Legalisation of Property”. The city authorities, citing shanty-town dwellers’ failure to register their properties correctly, ordered them to leave. Atabek and other oppositionists argued that the real reason was that the authorities wanted to make the land available to property developers.
Atabek lobbied parliamentarians, wrote articles, organised petitions and reminded the shanty-town dwellers of constitutional rights that protected them. But pleas by Atabek and other activists went unheeded. The police tried to clear the shanty-town forcibly, and a violent clash ensued in which an officer died. A round-up of activists followed.
Atabek was tried and convicted in October 2007 of “orchestrating mass disorder” — despite there being no evidence that he was nearby when the clashes occurred. He was offered a pardon in exchange for admitting guilt, but he vehemently refused.
The poet has continued to write in prison, detailing illegal and inhumane prison conditions on his website, which was set up by friends and family to whom he sent his writings. He has faced constant restrictions on visitors and had manuscripts confiscated. Before his current two-year sentence solitary, Atabek served a previous two-year period in a punishment cell (February 2010 to February 2012), for refusing to wear a prison uniform and other offences against prison rules.
Atabek’s son said in an email message to friends and supporters that his father’s health is suffering, and that he feared for his father’s life after the recent on-line publication of a book by him criticising Kazakh Nursultan Nazarbayev and other powerful figures in Kazakhstan.
