The UK has responded to an official alert to the Council of Europe’s platform to protect journalism, which was filed by Index on Censorship and co-submitted by the Association of European Journalists on 25 April 2019. The alert highlights the risks to media freedom in proposals in the government’s recently released online harms white paper.
The UK response is a copy of a letter from Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright to Ian Murray of the Society of Editors, who had raised concerns that the proposals, designed to combat support for terrorism, child abuse and other harms on the internet, would also impinge on press freedom.
The letter from Jeremy Wright states that journalistic or editorial content will not be affected by the proposed regulatory framework. However, it is very difficult to see how this could be avoided.
The proposals in the white paper cover companies of all sizes (including non-profit organisations). For example, a blog and comments would be included under the remit of a proposed online content regulator.
The letter futher states that the future “ …regulator will not be responsible for policing truth and accuracy online”. However, a new legal duty of care would cover a very broad range of “harms”, for example disinformation and violent content. In combination with substantial fines and potentially even personal criminal liability for senior managers it would create a very strong incentive for platforms to remove content proactively – including news stories that might be deemed ‘harmful’ by the regulator although their contents is not illegal.
Other proposals in the white paper may also have damaging impacts on media freedom, such as potential ISP blocking (making a platform inaccessible in or from the UK). The draft provisions for ensuring protection of users’ rights online, particularly freedom of expression, rights to privacy and the public interest are now sketchy and inadequate, but they need to be robust, detailed and provided for in law.
Index and AEJ look forward to a more comprehensive UK state reply to the Council of Europe, which explains unequivocally and in concrete detail how proposals in the white paper will be made compatible with the UK’s obligations to safeguard journalism and media freedom.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”74843″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Murad Subay, a Yemeni street artist and the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards Arts Fellow, was rejected for a visa to study at Aix-Marseille University as part of a one-year grant for threatened artists.
Subay, who creates murals protesting against Yemen’s civil war, was given a grant to study under the Institute of International Education’s Artistic Protection Fund, sponsored by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, which makes fellowship grants to artists from any field of practice, and places them at host institutions in safe countries where they can continue their work and plan for their futures.
The visa that would have allowed Subay to study was rejected by authorities on Friday, he told Index via email.
“This rejection highlights a spreading hostility to artistic freedom around the world. From Uganda to Indonesia to Cuba, proposed legislation threatens to control artists, while a growing number of supposedly democratic countries such as the UK frequently refuse visas to foreign authors, musicians and activists for events or training. This reinforces notion that constraining artistic freedom is acceptable,” Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship said.
“We ask French authorities to reverse this decision and allow Murad, an Index fellow, to study.”
Subay’s murals grew from the frustration he felt as his homeland descended into chaos and factionalism. Amid the destruction and anger, Subay picked up his brush. He went out into the streets with friends and began painting in broad daylight. After a few days he was joined by people from the community driven by their desire for peace amid Yemen’s civil war.
The Yemeni civil war has been raging since 2015. An estimated 13,600 people have been killed, including more than 5,200 civilians. The strife has contributed to the death of an estimated 50,000 people from an ongoing famine. In 2018, the United Nations warned that 13 million Yemeni civilians face starvation in what it says could become “the worst famine in the world in 100 years.”[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1556538997921-272e591f-f0ed-0″ taxonomies=”8196″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Responding to violations of media freedom in Hungary has become a conundrum for the EU. With populist parties poised for large gains in the next European election, Sally Gimson explores in the spring 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine what the EU could do to uphold free speech in member countries” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. Credit: EU2017EE Estonian Presidency / Flickr
Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini is enemy number one in the eyes of the Hungarian government. The Green politician incurred that government’s anger when she persuaded the European Parliament to the country losing voting rights.
She accused Hungary, among other democratic failings, of not ensuring a free and uncensored press. But since the vote last September, nothing has happened, except that the Hungarian government launched a campaign against her on state television – and she no longer feels safe to travel there.
“[The government] has been spreading so much hate against me, and if the government is spreading hate, what if there is a lunatic around? I’m not taking the risk,” she said.
“The Hungarian government spent 18 million euros on a publicity campaign against me, after I won the vote – with TV commercials and a full-page advertisement with my face on it.” The other vocal critic of Hungary, Belgian Liberal MEP and former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, as well as the philanthropist George Soros were targeted in the same campaign.
With the European elections coming up in May 2019, and the possibility of large gains by nationalist, populist parties, the question is what the EU can do to curb freedom of expression violations on its territory.
The problem according to Lutz Kinkel, managing director of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, is the EU has no specific competences over media freedom. No country can join the EU without guaranteeing freedom of expression as a basic human right under Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 7 is triggered when there is “a clear risk” of a member state breaching EU values. Although this can lead to a country’s voting rights being taken away, to get to that point, all the other EU countries have to agree.
As Camino Mortera-Martinez, a senior research fellow at the think-tank Centre for European Reform in Brussels, said: “Article 7 is never going to work because it is so vague. [All the other] member states are never going to argue to punish another one by suspending voting rights.”
Historian Tim Snyder, author of The Road to Unfreedom, a book about how Russia works to spread disinformation within the West, told Index he thought Hungary should have been thrown out of the EU a long time ago. But, with Britain’s exit from the EU, it is difficult to start expelling countries now.
“The tricky thing about the European Union, and this goes not just for eastern Europe but everyone, is that there might be rules for how you get in, but once you are in the rules are a lot less clear,” he said.
[/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=”It’s like joining a sorority with very strict rules for entering, but when you are there you can misbehave and it is covered up by the group” 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]
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Hungary is the most prominent country in Europe to put restrictions on media freedom. Not only is public service media directly under government control, and critical journalists have been fired, but the government has also made sure that private media has either been driven out of business or taken over by a few oligarchs close to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The only independent media are very small operations, publishing almost exclusively on the internet.
Snyder told Index: “I think Europeans generally made the mistake of thinking that it doesn’t matter if we have one small country which is going the wrong way [and that] Hungary can’t possibly affect others. But the truth is – because it is easier to build authoritarianism than democracy – one bad example does ripple outwards and Hungary isn’t just Hungary and Orbán isn’t just Orbán; they represent a kind of mode of doing things which other people can look to, and individual leaders can say: ‘That’s possible’.”
This is borne out by Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project which tracked media freedom in 43 European countries and found patterns that showed countries following Hungary’s example including Poland.
Anita Kőműves is an investigative journalist in Hungary who works for non-profit investigative outlet Átlátszó.hu which won an Index award for digital activism in 2015. She says not only does Brussels do nothing to challenge Hungary’s undermining of the free press but people in the commission are persuaded it is not all that bad.
She said: “Orbán is walking a fine line with Brussels. He knows that he cannot go too far. Whatever happens here, it must be deniable and explainable. Orbán goes to Brussels, or sends one of his henchmen, and he explains everything away. He has bad things written about him every single day in Hungary and nobody is in jail, so everything is fine… everything is not fine. Freedom of speech, the fact that I can write anything I like on the internet and nobody puts me in jail, is not the same as freedom of media when you have a strong media sector which is independent of the government.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”I think Europeans generally made the mistake of thinking that it doesn’t matter if we have one small country which is going the wrong way” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The solution for Brussels, she argues, is not Article 7 but for the EU to use European competition law to challenge the monopoly on media ownership the government and government-backed companies have in Hungary.
Kinkel says that this would be a warning to other countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, which are trying to control the media in similar ways and in the case of Bulgaria giving EU funds only to government-friendly media.
“Governments try to get hold of public service media: this is one step,” he said. “And the other step is to throw out investors and media they don’t like and to give media outlets to oligarchs who are government-friendly and so on and so on, and to start new campaigns against independent investigative journalists.”
In Poland, the European Commission invoked Article 7 because of the government’s threats to the independence of the judiciary. The government so far controls only the state media but, as journalist Bartosz Wieliński , head of foreign news at the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, points out, the government used that state media to hound the mayor of Gdańsk, Paweł Adamowicz, for months before he was assassinated in January this year.
Wieliński believes it was only after Britain voted to leave the EU that countries realised they would face little sanction if they chipped away at freedom of expression. Although the EU did not collapse as they expected, the initial disarray gave them an opportunity to test European mechanisms and find them wanting.
Maria Dahle is chief executive of the international Human Rights House Foundation. She believes financial sanctions could be the way to stop countries from crossing the line, as Poland and Hungary have.
“When allocating funding, it should be conditional,” she said. “If [member states] do violate the rule of law, it has to have consequences … and the consequences should be around financial support.”
But Mortera-Martinez warns if the EU starts punishing countries too much financially, it will encourage anti-EU feeling which could be counter-productive, leading to election wins for populist, nationalist parties. The effect of any populist gains in the May elections concerns Kinkel, also: “What is clear is that when the populist faction grows, they have the right to have their people on certain positions on committees and so on. And this will be a problem… especially for press and media freedom,” he said.
Back at the European Parliament, Sargentini is impatient. “It’s about political will, and the EU doesn’t have it at the moment,” she said. “It’s like joining a sorority [with] very strict rules for entering, but when you are there you can misbehave and it’s covered up by the group.”
Sally Gimson is the deputy editor of Index on Censorship magazine.
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=”Is this all the local news?” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2018%2F12%2Fbirth-marriage-death%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The spring 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine asks Is this all the local news? What happens if local journalism no longer holds power to account?
With: Libby Purves, Julie Posetti and Mark Frary[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”105481″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2018/12/birth-marriage-death/”][/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][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article has been updated on 18 April 2019 to reflect that the name of organisation Lutz Kinkel works for had been written incorrectly. The article read “European Centre for Press and Media Reform”, when it should have read “European Centre for Press and Media Freedom”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”106191″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]“We in Syria were living in a big prison, without freedom, without good education, without good quality of life, without any desire of development,” says Dr. Kassem Alsayed Mahmoud, a food science and agricultural engineering researcher. “We have in Syria only five universities while we have more than 200 prisons.”
In 2009, Alsayed Mahmoud returned home to Syria after getting his masters and doctorate degree in France. He began working at Al-Furat University, where he quickly encountered the multitude of issues that academics in Syria face. In his experience as a professor and researcher in Syria, there is a serious lack of resources, experience and research freedom, in addition to issues of bureaucracy and corruption that all combine to create an environment that discourages and prevents academic freedom.
Despite his position as a professor at Al-Furat University and his age at the time, 37, he was forced into the one year of military service that is compulsory for Syrian citizens. He entered the military at the end of 2010 but was kept past his one-year mandatory service for an undetermined amount of time. By the end of 2012, Alsayed Mahmoud decided to defect from the military and leave Syria.
From there, Alsayed Mahmoud made his way to Turkey with the help of rebels, and then Qatar, where he remained for a year, before Scholars at Risk helped him obtain a research position in a lab at the Ghent University in Belgium. This position served as a starting point from which Alsayed Mahmoud then moved to a research position at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles, where he worked on the valorisation of bioorganic wastes from the food industry, to see if food waste could be converted into something more useful like energy, other chemicals or materials that could be helpful in manufacturing processes.
In August 2018 Alsayed Mahmoud moved back to France because of his French refugee status, where he is still searching for a job in his field.
Although he describes the higher education system in Syria as a “tragedy” and “disaster”, he still hopes to return to Syria and pursue academic research in order to help rebuild the country.
“For me, I hope very soon to be a free human living in the free Syria,” says Alsayed Mahmoud. “I hope that one day I, and all, Syrian academics could come back home and do our research with freedom as all our colleagues in Europe and developed countries do.”
Dr. Alsayed Mahmoud spoke to Emily Seymour, an undergraduate student of journalism at American University, for Index on Censorship.
Index: What are your hopes for Syria and yourself?
Alsayed Mahmoud: To stop the war in Syria as soon as possible. We need to change the dictatorial regime and clean the country of all occupation and terrorist forces. I want to go back to Syria to continue my work at a university and participate in building our country. I hope that Syria can establish the principles of freedom; and change the constitution to guarantee that no dictator could stay in power for a long time. For me, I hope very soon to be a free human living in the free Syria.
Index: How have you changed in since leaving Syria?
Alsayed Mahmoud: Since leaving Syria seven years ago, I feel that I have been living with an artificial heart. Despite having found a safe place, the help of people and governments in Europe, I still need to breathe the air of Syria, to meet my friends and loved ones, and be proud to develop the country. Seven years is long enough to know that some people who should represent humanity are the cause of disasters because they do not care about other people or about the next generations. These are the people in power who are destroying the earth by making decisions out of only self-interest, waging wars, polluting the earth and increasing hate speech and racism.
Index: Did going to France for your education impact how you viewed Syria when you returned? If so, in what way?
Alsayed Mahmoud: We in Syria were living in a big prison, without freedom, educational opportunities or a good quality of life. There was no desire to develop the country, which has been under a dictatorial regime and one-party rule since 1970. In Syria, we have only five universities but we have more than 200 prisons. When I returned to Syria, I tried to apply what I learned in France, but unfortunately, they forced me to do the mandatory military service in December 2010, despite my professorial position at a university and my age (37 years).
Index: How did the revolution impact higher education in Syria?
Alsayed Mahmoud: Before the revolution, higher education was not in a good situation. There was a lack of materials, a lack of good academics and staff due to the fact that most got their PhDs from Russia and came back without any experience. Very few research papers from Syria were published in the international reviews. There was no academic freedom because many projects were refused by the secret service because they thought the research would interfere with the security of the country. Most university students and staff, especially males, were killed, arrested, tortured, left the country or were forced into the war. You had no choice if you stayed: kill or be killed. Three of five Syrian universities are out of service or displaced to another city. There is also a lack of academics, staff, materials and even students. There is no higher education system in Syria now. It’s a tragedy and disaster.
The revolution also started at universities, because students and researchers believed that the future of the country was in danger. We knew that the situation of higher education in Syria is the worst it’s been since 1970, but we believed that the development of any country is based on research and higher education. The situation now is the result of about 50 years of dictatorship, and the revolution was the right step to start a new life in Syria. We need only some time without any terrorism or occupation to create a free and well educated new generation to build what the terrorist occupations destroyed.
Index: What was it about your experience in the army that prompted you to defect and leave the country?
Alsayed Mahmoud: Before I was forced to do the mandatory service, I was completely against the dictatorial regime and I hoped that one day I could feel free to say and do what I want in Syria.
I suffered a lot when I was in the army, we were forced to obey the stupid orders of the officers who could humiliate you if they knew that you have already finished your PhD in Europe or in a developed country and came back to Syria. As the revolution started in March 2011, they prevented us from seeing what was going on outside the military camps, they did not give us our freedom even when we finished our one-year service and kept us for an indefinite amount of time. From the first day of the revolution, I had decided to defect, but out of fear for my family, I stayed until they were safe. I defected because I am against this dictatorial regime and the army that killed civilians and innocent children, and destroyed the country only because Syrians wanted to be free.
Index: What does your current research focus on?
Alsayed Mahmoud: I returned to France in August 2018 after three years in Belgium because I have French refugee status, but I am still looking for a job in my field. My previous research focused on the valorisation of bioorganic wastes from the food industry. The goal was to give more value to food waste by producing high valued products like lactic acid, which is often used in different domains like food and pharmacy. We developed a fermentation mechanism for lactic acid production in order to valorise potato effluents, which are generated from potato processes.
Index: How has the support of organisations like Scholars at Risk (SAR) been important in your journey as an academic?
Alsayed Mahmoud: Scholars at Risk has had a very important impact on my career. Since I left Syria, I looked for help to find a safe place to continue my work as a researcher. SAR was the most helpful organisation in my case because they could help me to find a host lab — the Laboratory of Food Technology and Engineering — with a grant at Ghent University in Belgium. This was the first step to then find another two year grant at the 3BIO lab in the Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, where I worked on the valorisation of bioorganic wastes from the food industry. SAR has always been supportive, even after I finished my first year at Ghent University.
Index: Why do you believe academic freedom is important?
Alsayed Mahmoud: Academic freedom is one of the most important pillars for the development of any country. Academics are often leaders that nurture the success of a country. If they are not free to think, criticise and research, they will not be able to help foster development.
Index: In your experience, what has been the difference between the three different academic settings that you’ve been in, in Syria, France and now Belgium?
Alsayed Mahmoud: I could not find a big difference between France and Belgium, but I believe that the academic situation in Syria is very far from being as good as in Europe. In my experience, academic freedom in Syria is one of the worst in the world. Academic freedom is a more important ideal in France and Belgium. The influence of power on the research in Europe is mostly positive and academia and governments often work together to develop the country. In Syria power is really against research and development despite paying lip service to it in the media. The freedom of research is the key to development here in Europe, while in Syria research is controlled by the regime and Assad’s secret services. Generally, there is a very big budget for research here in Europe, while in Syria we have just a drop of that budget, which is also often stolen before reaching us or used for bad purposes. The staff in Syria was mostly educated in Russia and other countries that have low education levels.
The number of universities is a sign of a healthy education system in France and Belgium, while in Syria we have only five universities but more than 200 prisons. You can generally get what you need to carry out your research in Europe without any big financial or political problems, but in Syria, researchers are very limited by materials and budgets. The freedom of mobility to any country for the purposes of attending a scientific event is not a big issue here in Europe, while as a Syrian researcher you are limited by visa and political problems. I hope that one day I, and all Syrian academics, can return home and do our research in freedom — as all our colleagues in Europe and developed countries do — and be proud to be a Syrian researcher.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”105189″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/”][vc_column_text]This article was created in partnership with Scholars at Risk, an international network of institutions and individuals whose mission it is to protect scholars, promote academic freedom, and defend everyone’s right to think, question, and share ideas freely and safely. By arranging temporary academic positions at member universities and colleges, Scholars at Risk offers safety to scholars facing grave threats, so scholars’ ideas are not lost and they can keep working until conditions improve and they are able to return to their home countries. Scholars at Risk also provides advisory services for scholars and hosts, campaigns for scholars who are imprisoned or silenced in their home countries, monitoring of attacks on higher education communities worldwide, and leadership in deploying new tools and strategies for promoting academic freedom and improving respect for university values everywhere.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1554827510836-1e64b768-ccba-7″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
