08 Jun 09 | Uncategorized
It wasn’t quite like ordering pork in a kosher restaurant or flirting with the vicar’s wife, but my invitation to one of Singapore’s top intellectuals to justify curbs on liberty was not exactly what the free speech community was used to.
Still, I was pleased that at one of Index on Censorship’s events at the Global Forum for Free Expression in Oslo Professor Chua Beng Huat was given the chance to explain, in his words, the dangers of parasitic individualism.
Up against Prof Chua was a Russian journalist, Maxim Trudolyubov, an editor at the business paper, Vedomosti. He sought to explain, but in no way defend, a tendency among many Russians to associate the political liberalisation of the 1990s with material impoverishment.
Chua sought to differentiate between political discourse, which is heavily circumscribed through the application of perhaps the world’s most draconian defamation laws, and cultural and economic expression, which he categorised as increasingly free. He linked this with what he termed the efficiency of the government, consistently high growth rates and to a single party which has run the city state for 50 years.
I have heard this point made consistently on my various travels to Singapore, the country where I was born. It flies in the face of almost any western interpretation of free expression, but I have heard it expressed cogently, if somewhat embarrassedly, by intelligent and well-travelled Singaporeans.
Both Chua and Trudolyubov agreed with one of the main arguments of my forthcoming book, Freedom For Sale, in which I argue that the vast majority of people, whatever the country, culture and circumstance, appear increasingly willing to trade their liberty for the promise of either prosperity or security.
I also differentiate between what I call “private” freedoms –– to travel, live where you want, do what you want in your personal life –– and the “public” freedoms of free expression and free association, which are considered more expendable.
The audience agreed that self-censorship was now a far bigger threat than the traditional mechanisms of state control. One participant, a Croatian who had spent some years studying at Stanford University, argued that censorship was alive and well in the US, but deployed more subtly, through peer pressure and the desire not to stand out in the crowd or to be deemed extreme. Thus, he suggested, otherwise enquiring students were prepared to stay silent on politics, race and other contentious issues.
Can individuals, he asked, be trained to be stupid? Food for thought, but not the customary fare.
11 May 09 | Uncategorized
Squalid is the adjective that best describes the approach of our not-so-honourable members of parliament to their own expenses. But what about the journalism that has helped to all but destroy what remaining trust the public had in its elected representatives?
Some legitimate questions have been raised about the tactics deployed by the Daily Telegraph in buying in the information, apparently a CD from a mole inside parliament which had been touted around newspapers for months.
Cheque-book journalism is a time-honoured tactic of British newspapers, often revealing tawdry stories about celebrities that have little to do with free expression and more to do with prying into people’s private lives.
But in this instance, the Telegraph has surely acted in the public interest. Indeed, all the facts surrounding the case suggest that the newspaper has –– far from undermining our democracy –– helped to enhance it.
MPs, it should be remembered, fought tooth and nail to try to exempt themselves and the details of their 88-pence bath plugs and black glittered toilet seats from the public gaze. When they were forced to publish the information, they sought to time the release to coincide with the summer holidays. Then, instead of dealing with the issues in hand, the stock response of some parliamentary authorities was to call in the police to investigate wrongdoing and to attempt to change the rules by ensuring the expenses will not be published in future.
My critique of the British press is somewhat different to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s who, in one of his valedictory speeches as prime minister, described the British media as “feral”. Certainly there are many valid concerns around standards, around accountability (journalists’ expenses chits would also make for amusing reading), and around attention spans in the 24-hour news culture.
But by far the worst trait of the modern-day profession is a lack of fearless investigation.
One former reporter turned government press officer once told me how shocked he was, when moving across into the state sector, to see how little the public actually knew about what was being done in their name. Editors are frightened by the UK’s draconian libel laws; they are concerned about their day-to-day budgets, and they are interested mainly in “quick hits” rather than difficult holding the powerful to account.
And what of the media’s purported role as an “advocate of democracy”? I have heard this one thrown around in recent days. This school of thought argues that journalism has a “responsibility” to “promote” our democratic norms.
No it does not. It must act professionally, but one of its main preoccupations should be putting into the public domain information that the authorities would rather people do not know. It is then for readers or viewers to draw their own conclusions about the quality of our public representatives. Respect is not an entitlement. It is a reward for principle, duty — and good behaviour.
This post was originally published at Reuters Great Debate
22 Apr 09 | Uncategorized
Speaking at last night’s Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards, Chief Executive
John Kampfner outlined the plans, opportunities and challenges for Index on Censorship in the year ahead.
Two and a half decades in journalism took me to Berlin for the fall of the wall, to Russia for the collapse of Communism, to Rwanda for the terrible genocide. They also took me to Westminster for the likes of Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, and, yes, Damian McBride. One of the frustrations of that profession is that you talk about what other people do, but you rarely have the chance to do it yourself.
Free expression is under threat as never before. It goes to the core of civil liberties and to the health of civil society around the world.
Index on Censorship is a wonderful organisation, as many will attest. When Index on Censorship was founded the issue was much more black and white. Some states and systems were identified as abusers of free speech, others as promoters. Now the concerns are more variegated. Free speech is seen by some not as a bedrock of human rights, but as a challenge to them, for example on so-called ‘hate speech’. Restrictions are being imposed not just by authoritarian states but through self-censorship and democracies too.
I know it is invidious to pick out a few of our partners, but I want to thank our major funders — the Open Society Institute, Fritt Ord, the Arts Council and the Prince Claus Fund.
Our international and UK projects are led by Rohan Jayasekera with funding from different branches of the UN and EU, along with the foreign ministries and UK-based trusts, continue to be the benchmark for the most professional hands-on work to be found in the sector. A number of media lawyers have been doing invaluable campaigning with us on our current project, in conjunction with English PEN, to highlight the odious nature of libel law in this country.
Rohan and I will also be representing Index on Censorship at the Global Forum on Free Expression in Oslo in June and I have agreed with Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty that we will host a joint event in the autumn.
I’d like to pay tribute to Jonathan Dimbleby, who brought me onto Index on Censorship in September, and has shared our plans to modernise the organisation and increase its profile. We have an inspirational board of trustees, who do so much work behind the scenes. I’m delighted that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald QC, has agreed to join us.
Our website relaunches in May and is already attracting contributors like Bernard-Henri Levy, and Orlando Figes , among others. We invite contributions from people committed to civil liberties and free expression on all sides of the political spectrum. It is journalism, but it is much more than journalism.
Our ambition is clear: we want to ensure that Index on Censorship becomes, through the new website, magazine, events and other advocacy, the number one place, the hub, where people around the world turn to for intelligent, incisive work on free expression.
18 Mar 09 | Uncategorized
Index on Censorship Chief Executive John Kampfner was a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Front Row recently, discussing the last years of the Eastern Bloc.
You can listen to the show here
