04 Feb 11 | Uncategorized
At a parliamentary briefing this week on the World Service cuts (five language services to close, end of radio programmes in seven languages, 650 jobs lost), MPs were puzzled about the logic of the government’s actions. Why was the World Service being so brutally diminished when the government is actually increasing its foreign aid spending? Surely Bush House should qualify for some of that funding? There can be no doubt that World Service programmes contribute substantially towards the goals of international development: increasing access to information and freedom of expression around the world, essential for the foundation and health of any democracy. Well, it turns out that the Foreign Office (which has always funded the World Service till now) actually counts £25m of its grant-in-aid to the World Service towards meeting the government’s development goals. At the briefing in Westminster Hall, the former diplomat Lord Hannay declared it was a “con trick” — the World Service helps the government meet its target without entailing any further spending and without actually receiving development funding for its significant contribution. When you consider that the cuts over the next three years are totalling £46m and destroying Bush House’s position as the world’s single largest international broadcaster, receiving £25m would have averted the catastrophic blow that has just been delivered. Bush House has as much claim to international aid as the British Council (which received £40m in international development funding last year via the Foreign Office). The government urgently needs to rethink its strategy and at the very least justify why the Pope is deemed worthy of foreign aid, yet one of our greatest cultural institutions is disqualified: £1.85m of the development budget was spent on the papal visit last year.
20 Sep 10 | Uncategorized
Khyam Allami, musician and contributor to Index’s latest issue ‘Smashed Hits 2.0’, was interviewed with Index’s editor Jo Glanville on BBC Radio 5 live’s Up All Night on Saturday morning. Interview starts at 38 minutes
Also on Saturday, DJ Fari Bradley dedicated Free Lab Radio to music and protest to tie in with Index’s special music issue on ResonanceFM
http://freelabradio.blogspot.com/
Khyam Allami will be performing at the Free Word Centre on Tuesday from 6.30pm and Fari Bradley will also be playing a set at the Betsey Trotwood on Farringdon Road from 8.30pm
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/08/smashed-hits-2-0-live/
19 Aug 10 | Uncategorized
On Tuesday the Guardian ran a letter urging Waterstone’s to cancel its book-signing on 8 September for Tony Blair‘s memoirs. Iain Banks, AL Kennedy, Moazzem Begg, John Pilger, Michael Nyman and others described the event as “deeply offensive to most people in Britain.”
In today’s Guardian, Index editor Jo Glanville, Article 19 trustee Dr Evan Harris and Jonathan Heawood, director, English PEN respond.
We respect the writers of yesterday’s letter (18 August) and share their view on the illegality of the Iraq war and Tony Blair‘s nefarious role in engineering this country’s participation in it. But we can not share their call for Waterstone’s to desist from promoting it on the grounds that the event “will be deeply offensive to most people in Britain”, even if that were the case.
When it comes to literature, drama, journalism, artistic expression and scientific publication we must be consistent in our support for free speech. How can we defend the right of the Birmingham Repertory to put on and advertise a play like Behzti, despite it being deemed offensive to some Sikhs, and then call on a bookseller not to promote one of its books – or a library not to stock it — on the grounds of offence? The answer, in a liberal society, is to not read the book if it offends you, and to not buy a copy if you don’t wish royalties to go to the author.
While Iain Banks and colleagues say “Waterstone’s will seriously harm its own reputation as a respectable bookseller by helping him [Blair] promote his book”, we think its reputation would now be harmed by caving in to this sort of pressure.
06 Jul 10 | News and features
Narrow definitions of a bona fide protester smack of Victorian ideals of the deserving poor — Index defends everyone’s right to protest, writes Jo Glanville
Brett Lock’s despair at Index’s lack of sophistication raises of one of the great ironies for free speech activists. Many of the landmark free speech cases have been fought in defence of individuals whose ideas, beliefs and attitudes are singularly unattractive. Take the famous Skokie case of the 1970s, when the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the right of neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighbourhood. Or the celebrated Oz trial of the same decade. The Oz Schoolkids issue which was prosecuted for obscenity could never be called great literature, but the ultimate success of the case was an important milestone in protecting the freedom of expression of all writers. It is the principle in these cases that matters and that needs defending.
Brian Haw may have some questionable beliefs, but his longstanding presence in Parliament Square became a symbol of protest and of the defence to the right to protest under the last government. Would our critics prefer that Index choose only the most deserving cases? How does one decide who is or isn’t a bona fide protester, worthy of the support of a free speech organisation? Rather than pick and choose the apparently desirable causes and victims, it’s important for Index to be consistent and defend Haw and the Democracy Village. New Labour brought in a chilling number of laws that infringed the right to protest — including the freedom to demonstrate around parliament, and the use of stop and search counter-terrorism legislation — and the coalition government’s commitment to repeal the restrictions around Westminster is to be applauded. The removal of Brian Haw at the state opening of parliament was therefore a worrying moment so early in the life of the new government.
As Bibi van der Zee pointed out in her piece for Index last week, the British have a long tradition of pitching their tents in protest — from Heathrow to road bypasses — on public and private land. And what could be a better spot for making your voice heard than opposite parliament? The legal argument around this case pitches the protesters’ right to free expression against the public’s rights and freedoms to access Parliament Square. But it is surely not the worthiness of the protesters’ cause that should be the central issue here.
Jo Glanville is editor of Index on Censorship and a member of the Ministry of Justice working party on libel reform
