22 Aug 19 | News and features, Press Releases
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”108642″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship, one of the world’s leading freedom of expression groups, wants to reverse the trend of free speech being pitted against advocacy for social change. Today, Index is pleased to announce the opening of Free Speech Is For Me to applicants. The aim is to equip a broad new range of individuals to challenge censorship, defend speech rights and champion freedom of expression for all activists.
Free speech has been critical to social movements throughout history. Groups leverage their right to free speech to challenge those who are protecting the status quo. But lately many of the loudest voices demanding “free speech” seek to use it primarily to spread hate, leading many to question it as a value – and paving the way for a rise in demands for censorship.
“‘Free speech’ has become a dirty word in the last few years,” said Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg. “Free Speech Is For Me aims to show how freedom of expression furthers democracy and individual liberty, and benefits everyone. If we allow free speech protections to be weakened, we lose our greatest tool in advocating for change.”
Free Speech Is For Me will offer twelve places–six in the US and six in the UK. Selected applicants will receive one-on-one support from leading free speech experts, as well as media, communications and public speaking training. Participants will gain a clearer understanding of the challenges of censorship and the tools to overcome them, as well as how to best advocate for and use free speech principles within their communities and advocacy areas.
In the United States, the program will run in collaboration with the National Coalition Against Censorship.
Who can apply?
Index is seeking applicants who bring a different point of view to discussions of free speech. Six people in the US and six people in the UK will be recruited from communities that may have questioned the value of free expression principles in recent years. These might include, but are not limited to, groups working on racial justice, religious and ethnic minorities, and sex and gender rights activists.
Applicants may come from all age groups. Particular consideration will be given to activists who have experienced the shutting down of speech.
We want applicants who will champion free speech as a right that benefits them and their peers and is essential to their cause, but is also a right shared by all.
What will the program involve?
Successful applicants will receive:
- Mentoring: Participants will be paired with experienced free speech advocates who will act as advisors and mentors to each individual over the course of the training. There will be 4-6 meetings delivered either face to face or virtually, plus additional support as needed.
- Media training: Participants will receive one full day of professional media training plus regular training on public speaking/writing as necessary.
- Public events: Participants will be given the skills to talk about issues of free speech at public events, in private meetings and in the media, particularly as applies to their other advocacy work. We will work with the advocates to identify these opportunities.
- We will pay expenses to attend training and a speaker fee for events and writing.
Applicants can find out more at this webpage:.
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/free-speech-is-for-me/
About Index on Censorship
Index on Censorship is a London-based non-profit organisation that publishes work by censored writers and artists and campaigns against censorship worldwide. Since its founding in 1972, Index on Censorship has published some of the greatest names in literature in its award-winning quarterly magazine, including Samuel Beckett, Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Arthur Miller and Kurt Vonnegut. It also has published some of the world’s best campaigning writers from Vaclav Havel to Elif Shafak.
About the National Coalition Against Censorship
The National Coalition Against Censorship promotes freedom of thought, inquiry and expression. An alliance of more than 50 national non-profits, NCAC has been advocating for free speech principles for 45 years.[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1566460846609-b317eb73-ee75-7″ taxonomies=”5692″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Jul 19 | Magazine, News and features, Volume 48.02 Summer 2019
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Index editor Rachael Jolley argues in the summer 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine that it is vital to defend the distance between a nation’s leaders and its judges and lawyers, but this gap being narrowed around the world” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
It all started with a conversation I had with a couple of journalists working in tough countries. We were talking about what kind of protection they still had, despite laws that could be used to crack down on their kind of journalism – journalism that is critical of governments.
They said: “When the independence of the justice system is gone then that is it. It’s all over.”
And they felt that while there were still lawyers prepared to stand with them to defend cases, and judges who were not in the pay of – or bowed by – government pressure, there was still hope. Belief in the rule of law, and its wire-like strength, really mattered.
These are people who keep on writing tough stories that could get them in trouble with the people in power when all around them are telling them it might be safer if they were to shut up.
This sliver of optimism means a great deal to journalists, activists, opposition politicians and artists who work in countries where the climate is very strongly in favour of silence. It means they feel like someone else is still there for them.
I started talking to journalists, writers and activists in other places around the world, and I realised that although many of them hadn’t articulated this thought, when I mentioned it they said: “Yes, yes, that’s right. That makes a real difference to us.”
So why – and how – do we defend the system of legal independence and make more people aware of its value? It’s not something you hear being discussed in the local bar or café, after all.
Right now, we need to make a wider public argument about why we all need to stand up for the right to an independent justice system.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”On an ordinary day, most of us are not in court or fighting a legal action, so it is only when we do, or we know someone who is, that we might realise that something important has been eroded” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
We need to do it because it is at the heart of any free country, protecting our freedom to speak, think, debate, paint, draw and put on plays that produce unexpected and challenging thoughts. The wider public is not thinking “hey, yes, I worry that the courts are run down, and that criminal lawyers are in short supply”, or “If I took a case to trial and won my case I can no longer claim my lawyer’s fees back from the court”. On an ordinary day, most of us are not in court or fighting a legal action, so it is only when we are, or when we know someone who is, that we might realise that something important has been eroded.
Our rights are slowly, piece by piece, being undermined when our ability to access courts is severely limited, when judges feel too close to presidents or prime ministers, and when lawyers get locked up for taking a case that a national government would rather was not heard.
All those things are happening in parts of the world right now.
In China, hundreds of lawyers are in prison; in England and Wales since 2014 it has become more risky financially for most ordinary people to take a case to court as those who win a case no longer have their court fees paid automatically; and in Brazil the new president, Jair Bolsonaro, has just appointed a judge who was very much part of his election campaign to a newly invented super-ministerial role.
Helpfully, there are some factors that are deeply embedded in many countries’ legal histories and cultures that make it more difficult for authoritarian leaders to close the necessary space between the government and the justice system.
Many people who go into law, particularly human-rights law, do so with a vision of helping those who are fighting the system and have few powerful friends. Others hate being pressurised. And in many countries there are elements of the legal system that give sustenance to those who defend the independence of the judiciary as a vital principle.
Nelson Mandela’s lawyer, Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, has made the point that judges recruited from an independent bar would never entirely lose their independence, even when the system pressurised them to do so.
He pointed out that South African lawyers who had defended black men accused of murder in front of all-white juries during the apartheid period were not easily going to lose their commitment to stand up against the powerful.
Sir Sydney did, however, also argue that “in the absence of an entrenched bill of rights, the judiciary is a poor bulwark against a determined and immoderate government” in a lecture printed in Free Country, a book of his speeches.
So it turned out that this was the right time to think about a special report on this theme of the value of independent justice, because in lots of countries this independence is under bombardment.
It’s not that judges and lawyers haven’t always come under pressure. In his book The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham, a former lord chief justice of England and Wales, mentions a relevant historical example. When Earl Warren, the US chief justice, was sitting on the now famous Brown v Board of Education case in 1954, he was invited to dinner with President Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower sat next to him at dinner and the lawyer for the segregationists sat on his other side. According to Warren, the president went to great lengths to promote the case for the segregationists, and to say what a great man their lawyer was. Despite this, Warren went on to give the important judgement in favour of Brown that meant that racial segregation in public schools became illegal.
Those in power have always tried to influence judges to lean the way they would prefer, but they should not have weapons to punish those who don’t do so.
In China, hundreds of lawyers who stood up to defend human-rights cases have been charged with the crime of “subverting state power” and imprisoned. When the wife of one of the lawyers calls on others to support her husband, her cries go largely unheard because people are worried about the consequences.
This, as Karoline Kan writes on p23, is a country where the Chinese Communist Party has control of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government, and where calls for political reform, or separation of powers, can be seen as threats to stability.
As we go to press we are close to the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square killings, when thousands of protesters all over China, from all kinds of backgrounds, had felt passionately that their country was ready for change – for democracy, transparency and separation of powers.
Unfortunately, that tide was turned back by China’s government in 1989, and today we are, once more, seeing China’s government tightening restrictions even further against those who dare to criticise them.
Last year, the Hungarian parliament passed a law allowing the creation of administrative courts to take cases involving taxation and election out of the main legal system (see p34). Critics saw this as eroding the gap between the executive and the justice system. But then, at the end of May 2019, there was a U-turn, and it was announced that the courts were no longer going ahead. It is believed that Fidesz, the governing party in Hungary, was under pressure from its grouping in the European Parliament, the European People’s Party.
If it were kicked out of the EPP, Hungary would have in all likelihood lost significant funding, and it is believed there was also pressure from the European Parliament to protect the rule of law in its member states.
But while this was seen as a victory by some, others warned things could always reverse quickly.
Overall the world is fortunate to have many lawyers who feel strongly about freedom of expression, and the independence of any justice system.
Barrister Jonathan Price, of Doughty Street Chambers, in London, is part of the team advising the family of murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia over a case against the Maltese government for its failure to hold an independent inquiry into her death.
He explained why the work of his colleagues was particularly important, saying: “The law can be complex and expensive, and unfortunately the laws of defamation, privacy and data protection have become so complex that they are more or less inoperable in the hands of the untrained.”
Specialist lawyers who were willing to take on cases had become a necessary part of the rule of law, he said – a view shared by human-rights barrister David Mitchell, of Ely Place Chambers, in London.
“The rule of law levels the playing field between the powerful and [the] powerless,” he said. “It’s important that lawyers work to preserve this level.”
Finally, another thought from Sir Sydney that is pertinent to how the journalists I mentioned at the beginning of this article keep going against the odds: “It is not necessary to hope in order to work, and it is not necessary to succeed in order to hope in order to work, and it is not necessary to succeed in order to persevere.”
But, of course, it helps if you can do all three.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachael Jolley is editor of Index on Censorship. She tweets @londoninsider. This article is part of the latest edition of Index on Censorship magazine, with its special report on local news
Index on Censorship’s spring 2019 issue is entitled Is this all the local news? What happens if local journalism no longer holds power to account?
Look out for the new edition in bookshops, and don’t miss our Index on Censorship podcast, with special guests, on Soundcloud.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”How governments use power to undermine justice and freedom” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2019%2F06%2Fmagazine-judged-how-governments-use-power-to-undermine-justice-and-freedom%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The summer 2019 Index on Censorship magazine looks at the narrowing gap between a nation’s leader and its judges and lawyers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”107686″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/06/magazine-judged-how-governments-use-power-to-undermine-justice-and-freedom/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Jul 19 | Campaigns -- Featured, Digital Freedom Statements, Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/RKJnsIzGeZA”][vc_column_text]The proposals in the online harms white paper risk damaging freedom of expression in the UK, and abroad if other countries follow the UK’s example, Index on Censorship said in its response to the government’s consultation.
“Under pressure to be seen to be doing something, the UK government has rushed out the proposals in the online harms white paper without thinking through the consequences,” Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy at Index, said.
In its written response to the consultation, Index pointed out that the wide range of different harms that the government is seeking to tackle in this policy process require different, tailored responses.
Any proposed regulationmust be underpinned by clear and unambiguous evidence, both of the likely scale of the “harm” and the measures’ likely effectiveness.
Index remains concerned at the government’s proposed duty of care as a regulatory approach, because it could lead to legal expression being censored as a “harm”.
The government’s white paper failed to accurately define “harmful” content, which risks sweeping up legal speech, including political expression, expressions of religious views, expressions of sexuality and gender, and expression advocating on behalf of minority groups that are fundamental to effective democratic functions.
Proposals that combine platform liability with sanctions for third party content contain serious risks, such as requiring or incentivising wide-sweeping removal of lawful and innocuous content. The proposed regulator should not outlaw content beyond that which is already illegal.
Index recommends that any potential regulation include explicit protections for freedom of expression and that the government consult with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society experts on digital rights and freedom of expression.
The duty of care would cover companies of all sizes, social media companies, public discussion forums, retailers that allow users to review products online, non-profit organisations (for example, Index on Censorship), file sharing sites and cloud hosting providers. This is too wide and would be very challenging to implement in practice.
Index believes that private communications should not be in scope. Private channels are essential means for freedom of expression, including enabling campaigners and activists to make their voices heard. [/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-file-pdf-o” color=”black” background_style=”rounded-less” size=”xl” align=”right” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2FOnline-Harms-Consultation-Response-Index-on-Censorship.pdf|||”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1562332058485-23648e0d-51fb-1″ taxonomies=”33056, 32807″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Jun 19 | News and features, Press Releases
Index on Censorship, the campaigning free-speech nonprofit, has been announced as the official talks partner of Cambridge Folk Festival and will host a series of events as part of a brand new Spoken Folk strand at the Festival, which takes place from 1-4 August at Cherry Hinton Hall, Cambridge.
Events include spoken word performances from poet and folk musician Jade Cuttle and hip-hop poetry company Lyrix Organix’s Dan Tsu, a talk on women and folk music featuring Stevie Freeman, CEO of Americana UK, and professional “Strong Lady” Charmain Childs, plus a series of taboo-busting Fireside Folk Tales for Grown Ups.
Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg says:
“Folk music has long been the vehicle through which truth could be told to power. Folk songs are songs of protest. They are songs that tell stories about the lives lived by ordinary people – and are of the people. As a huge folk fan myself, I’m really excited Index is partnering with one of the country’s leading folk festivals to celebrate freedom of expression and the role folk music plays in championing it.”
Cambridge Folk Festival Manager Rebecca Stewart says:
“Cambridge partnering with Index on Censorship makes a lot of sense. Folk music has been described as the music of the people and often has very strong political ties. Songs that talk about some of the most censored times in British history are commonplace in many performers’ sets and they often take inspiration from some of the worst of times, to make something beautiful and powerful. For the Festival to be able to work with an organisation that supports those voices around the world is really important, especially in this day and age.”
Cambridge Folk Festival takes place at Cherry Hinton Hall from 1-4 August 2019. Stage 1 headliners are Calexico and Iron & Wine (Friday), Lucinda Williams (Saturday) and From Bamako to Birmingham featuring Amadou and Mariam and Blind Boys of Alabama (Sunday). Stage 2 headliners are Ralph McTell (Thursday), Robert Finley (Friday), Tunng (Saturday).
See the full line-up here: https://www.cambridgelive.org.uk/folk-festival
– ENDS –
Listings Info:
All talks and performances take place in the Flower Garden.
- Women’s Panel (Friday 2 August, 5:30 – 6:30 PM)
- What The Folk? Free Expression and the Future of Folk (Saturday 3rd August, 3:00-4:00 PM)
- Fireside Folktales for Grownups (Friday 2nd, Saturday 3rd & Sunday 4th August, 9:00 PM)
For more information:
INDEX ON CENSORSHIP
Sean Gallagher [email protected]
CAMBRIDGE FOLK FESTIVAL
Ben Casement-Stoll [email protected]
Christina McNally [email protected]
Notes for Editors:
Index on Censorship is a non-profit organisation that defends free expression and fights censorship of artists, writers, journalists and campaigners worldwide through advocacy, events and an award-winning quarterly magazine. Index believes that everyone has the right to free expression – no matter what their views. Index on Censorship has published some of the greatest names in literature including Samuel Beckett, Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Arthur Miller and Kurt Vonnegut. Patrons include Margaret Atwood, Simon Callow and Steeve Coogan.
Website: www.indexoncensorship.org
Twitter: @IndexCensorship
Cambridge Folk Festival is one of the longest running and most prestigious folk festivals in the world. Established by Cambridge City Council and held each year since 1965, the Festival is renowned for its unique atmosphere and eclectic mix of music. It attracts legendary traditional folk artists along with cutting edge contemporary acts, the finest American country, blues and roots artists and acclaimed singer songwriters.
Website: https://www.cambridgelive.org.uk/folk-festival
Twitter: @CamFolkFest
