04 Oct 18 | Awards, Cuba, Fellowship, Fellowship 2018, News and features, Press Releases
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”102925″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]The UK has overturned a decision to refuse visas to two award-winning Cuban artists who had been invited to take up a two-week artistic residency in Britain.
Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara and Yanelys Nuñez Leyva, winners of this year’s Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards for Arts, were told last month their visa request had been denied — the second refusal this year. The artists had been scheduled to attend Index’s award ceremony in London in April but were denied visas to attend.
Alcántara and Nunez are founders of The Museum of Dissidence, a public art project and website celebrating dissent in Cuba. Set up in 2016, the museum organises radical public art projects and installations, concentrated in the poorer districts of Havana. This year, the two have been granted visas to Argentina, Chile, the Czech Republic, and the United States.
They were called to the UK embassy in Havana on October 2 and told the visa would be granted after all having “reevaluated” their application.
Jodie Ginsberg, Index on Censorship chief executive said: “Fortunately the UK has realised its mistake and reversed what was clearly an unfair decision. Government ministers talk repeatedly of freedom of speech as a key British value so it’s critical the UK demonstrates it in practice. Denying visas to artists who have faced oppression in their own countries for speaking out simply emboldens the oppressor.”
Last month, Cuban authorities arrested Nuñez and Alcantara for their role in organising a concert against Decree 349, a vague law that will give the government more control over the display and exchange of art. The law, due to come into force on 1 December 2018, gives the Ministry of Culture increased power to censor, issue fines and confiscate materials for work of which they do not approve. The pair were beaten during their detention.
It was the second arrest in three weeks for Alcantara in relation to Decree 349.
Nunez and Alcantara – will now be able to take up most of their planned two-week residency in Southend with Metal, an organisation that champions artistic innovation and provides practical support to artists, as well as receive in person their Freedom of Expression Award.
Colette Bailey, CEO and Artistic Director of Metal, said: “Metal are absolutely delighted that the decision not to allow Nunez and Alcantara to visit the UK as part of an artistic exchange has been overturned. We are very excited to welcome them in the coming weeks to Southend on Sea as part of our International Artists in Residence programme and are now busy preparing for their stay during which they will meet our local and regional artistic communities.”
Nunez and Alcantara were originally refused their visas on the grounds of insufficient evidence they would be able to support themselves financially during their stay.
“We had provided ample evidence of the support they would receive and that Index would stand as guarantor,” said Index on Censorship’s fellowships and advocacy officer Perla Hinojosa. “We have run our awards for nearly 20 years and never had any of our winners overstay or breach their visa terms. We’re so pleased the UK recognised how important it is to be able to welcome groups like the Museum of Dissidence to the UK.”
In August, directors of some of Britain’s biggest festivals signed a letter calling for the government to make its “overly complex” visa application process more transparent, after a surge in refusals and complications for authors, artists and musicians invited to perform in the UK.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1538647532051-bd795fb1-e996-5″ taxonomies=”23707″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
03 Oct 18 | Event Reports, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103062″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]“Critical thinking is important, but we should also be teaching scientific literacy and political literacy so we know what knowledge claims to trust,” said Keith Kahn-Harris, author of Denial: The Unspeakable Truth, at a panel debate during the launch of the autumn 2018 edition of Index on Censorship.
The theme of this quarter’s magazine, The Age of Unreason, looks at censorship in scientific research and whether our emotions are blurring the lines between fact and fiction. From Mexico to Turkey, Hungary to China, a whole range of countries from around the globe were covered for this special report, featuring articles from the likes of Julian Baggini and David Ulin. For the launch, a selection of journalists, authors and academics shared their thoughts on how to have better arguments when emotions are high, while exploring concerns surrounding science and censorship in the current global climate.
Aptly taking place at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, the historical home of scientific research for 14 Nobel Prize winners, Kahn-Harris was joined by BBC Radio 4 presenter Timandra Harkness and New Scientist writer Graham Lawton. The discussion was chaired by Rachael Jolley, editor of Index on Censorship magazine.
“Academics and experts are being undermined all over the world,” said Jolley, setting the stage for a riveting conversation between panellists and the audience. “Is this something new or something that has happened throughout history?”
When Jolley asked why science is often the first target of an authoritarian government, Lawton proposed that the value of science is that it is evidence-based and subsequently “kryptonite” to what rigid establishments want to portray. He added: “They depend extremely heavily on telling people half-truths or lies.”[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”103066″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Harkness led a workshop highlighting the importance of applying critical thinking skills when deconstructing arguments, using footage of real-life debates, past and present, to investigate such ideas. Whether it was the first televised contest between presidential candidates John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, or a dispute between Indian civilians over LGBT rights earlier this year, a wide variety of topics and discussions were analysed.
Examining a debate between 2016 presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, Harkness asked an audience member his thoughts. Focusing on Trump’s approach, he said: “He’s put up a totally false premise which is quite a conventional tactic; you put up something that is not what the other person said, and then you proceed to knock it down quite reasonably because it’s unreasonable in the first place.” Harkness agreed. “It’s the straw man tactic”, she said, “where you build something up and then attack it.”
Panellists began discussing how to argue with say those who deny climate change, with Kahn-Harris contending that science has become enormously specialised over the past centuries, which means people cannot always debunk uncertain claims since they are not specialists. He said: “There’s something tremendously smug about the post-enlightenment world.”
Harkness said “robust challenges” should be sought-after rather than silencing those who share different views, while Lawton added that “storytelling and appealing to emotions are perfectly valid ways of arguing.”
For more information on the autumn issue, click here. The issue includes an article on how fact and fiction come together in the age of unreason, why Indian journalism is under threat, Nobel prize-winning novelist Herta Müller on censorship in Romania, and an exclusive short story from bestselling crime writer Ian Rankin. Listen to our podcast here. Or, try our quiz that decides how prone to bullshit you are…[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1538584887174-432e9410-24f0-4″ taxonomies=”8957″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Oct 18 | Event Reports, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103055″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]When Sunny Singh was writing her last novel, “Hotel Arcadia,” featuring an Indian protagonist caught in a terrorist siege, she received a response from a publisher she didn’t expect: “We already have our female war correspondent novel of the year.” They didn’t need another one.
“I didn’t know there was a category for female war correspondent novels, but there you go,” she said.
The crowd laughed at the anecdote, but within the tale was a serious problem — the self-censorship of the publishing industry.
On Friday evening, Banned Books Week UK held a panel discussion on the ways the publishing industry systemically silences voices from marginalised groups, and how to resist this unofficial censorship.
The panel was hosted by Index on Censorship, Media Diversified, Author’s Club, and Jhalak Prize — a literary award for book of the year by a writer of colour. It featured Singh, Sarah Shaffi, literary editor and journalist, Catherine Johnson, author and Jhalak Prize inaugural judge, and Jamilah Ahmed, author and literary agent.
The talk focused on the point of books that don’t have the privilege of being banned, whose ideas aren’t allowed to make it to that stage.
“What we’re banning is experiences and voices,” Shaffi said. “Essentially what we’re doing is we’re not letting voices come to the fore.”
The panel called it “soft censorship,” the ways in which the industry bans books from marginalized and minority groups through subtle, structural methods.
This is particularly harmful to children of colour, who only see stories revolving around white children and grow up thinking that only white children are in books, Shaffi said. Singh, who teaches creative writing at the university level, said that she still has trouble getting her students to write about someone not named Mary.
But the panel was quick to point out that the problem is not with the writers, but the industry, which often only wants one version of a minority story — as with Singh’s “Hotel Arcadia” — and doesn’t want to work harder to sell a book they don’t already know how to sell.
This manifests in book covers — novels set in Africa always showing an elephant or a sunset, or novels set in India always showing a woman in a sari. Publishers often only want to depict a certain type of narrative of a place, because they know that story will make money. Singh had this problem with “Hotel Arcadia,” with a publisher finally telling her that if she went along with one of the stereotypical covers, the book would sell better.
Singh resisted, but many writers fall into the trap. Johnson said some writers will modify themselves and their stories to get published.
It’s also a privilege to write, and not everyone has the time to spend on writing, especially with no guarantee their work will get published or make any money.
“By the time you’ve got that book submitted, who’s going to publish that book, and is that book going to be worthy? Are the publishers going to put money so that it’s in the window in Waterstones?,” Johnson said. “And that’s a journey.”
It’s not a journey everyone is willing to take, especially when structural disadvantages make it more difficult for minority authors to get published.
Even book awards require fees, which act as a barrier. Publishers will only put that money down for stories they know will sell, which probably won’t be books from marginalized groups. So the books that become critically acclaimed are often already the ones that had that advantage.
The situation isn’t all bleak. Smaller, independent publishers are often better at seeking out lesser known voices, and sometimes reviewers can specifically request books by people of colour, LGBTQ folks and those with disabilities.
It’s also up to the readers, who Johnson said must be confident and interested enough to seek these marginalized stories out.
“We need to have a culture of informed and active readers,” she said.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1538410490886-c1058b9e-6953-1″ taxonomies=”8957″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
02 Oct 18 | Event Reports, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1538411159612-931d3bf3-13de-1″ include=”103047,103044,103043,103042″][vc_column_text]Marking the 50th year anniversary of the end of UK theatre censorship ushered in by the Theatres Act of 1968, Index on Censorship hosted The Lord Chamberlain Regrets – Theatre and Censorship workshop. The workshop was targeted at young people aged 18 to 30. This event was a venue partnership with the British Library and was funded by the Noel Coward Foundation.
“Free speech is just as much about having the right to not speak as it is about speaking. What is important is that what you do say is your own choice and not something imposed on you by politicians, society, your family, your friends,” said deputy editor of Index on Censorship magazine Jemimah Steinfeld, who facilitated the workshop, when introducing the event.
The educational and interactive workshop included an overview by Zoë Wilcox, curator, contemporary performance and creative archives of the British Library, on the history of theatre censorship in the UK.
Wilcox explained how the Lord Chamberlain’s office worked, which was responsible for approving — and censoring — scripts of plays that were to be shown publicly. In addition to plays that did not reflect supposed good societal standards, plays were vetted for content that would not positive about the royal family. Sir Robert Walpole introduced this measure of censorship in 1737 to protect him and his administration from political satire.
For 230 years, Wilcox explained, the process of theatre censorship would begin when a playwright sent their script to the Lord Chamberlain where his office would read and demand changes or omit lines found inappropriate to be publicly performed.
Two professional Globe actors, Jennifer Leong and Matthew Romain, also performed scenes from some of Coward’s most provocative plays and attendees were asked to pinpoint what exactly would have wrangled the censors when they were created in the 1920s and 30s.
Leong and Romain performed from The Vortex, a 1924 play written by Noel Coward that explored provocative themes around adultery, drugs and homosexuality, and which resulted in lines being censored by the Lord Chamberlain. The actors then read selections from the letters about the play from members of the public demanding censorship and the Lord Chamberlain ordering changes to the script.
Design for Living, a Coward play written in 1932, also had lines struck by the Lord Chamberlain. After Leong and Romain performed a scene, Steinfeld distributed copies of another scene from the play and asked participants to censor it as if they were the Lord Chamberlain. They then read out their revised scripts.
The Vortex and Design for Living are just a couple of the censored plays contained within the Lord Chamberlain’s archives, which is the British Library’s largest manuscript collection.
Steinfeld said censorship can come from many different avenues – society, politicians, your family and friends – it’s not always obvious and the workshop ended looking at today’s context. Speaking after the event, she said:
“The workshop was incredibly rewarding – many in the room had no idea how censorship in UK theatres worked in terms of the Lord Chamberlain and how this censorship only ended relatively recently. We finished with examples of how censorship still exists in various, albeit more subtle ways in UK theatres. People left wanting to know more and realising that censorship is something that can and does affect them – it’s not something that just concerns those from other times or places.” [/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1538411129146-c16f9349-0148-1″ taxonomies=”8957″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
