23 Sep 16 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, Cyprus, Europe and Central Asia, France, Mapping Media Freedom, mobile, News and features, Russia
Each week, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project verifies threats, violations and limitations faced by the media throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Here are five recent reports that give us cause for concern.
The right-wing National Front (FN) party of France held its summer conference in Fréjus earlier this month. On 16 September the party refused to allow access to the independent media website Mediapart and the Quotidien television programme. The party has denied access to Mediapart in the past due to its critical reporting on the party.
Journalists’ societies of Radio France, le Monde, le Figaro, Libération, le Parisien, les Echos, Courrier International, AEF, France 2, France 3, TF1, Itélé/Canal+ denounced the ban and said they hoped it would not happen again. The FN has refused to grant access to journalists in the past despite this being against the law.
Regardless of the party’s attempt to keep Mediapart from the summer conference, the website claims they hired a freelance writer to cover the event.
Vladimir Romensky was removed by police from a Russian polling station on 18 September. Romensky is a reporter for the independent television channel Dozhd and was sent to the polling station to investigate potential voter fraud. He was responding to rumors that ballot stuffing had occurred at the site.
When Romensky attempted to enter he was approached by a man who refused to introduce himself and did not allow Romensky or his camera crew to access the polling station. A nearby police officer then intervened and demanded to see Romensky’s documents. Despite having all the necessary documents for his camera crew and himself, the police officer called armed guards and pushed the crew out of the station.
Dmitry Korotkov, a reporter for the Russian news site Fontanka, was arrested in St Petersburg on 18 September while investigating voter fraud.
Korotkov was looking into information about carousel voting, which occurs when an organised group of voters travels to different voting districts to repeatedly vote, even though they are not registered in that district. Fontanka discovered that voters were given four ballots at a certain polling station after revealing a special stamp on their passports to polling officials.
Korotkov was able to obtain the passport stamp and received four ballots at the designated polling station even though he was not registered in the specific district. In response, the polling official offered for him to sign as another voter.
Korotkov revealed to the polling official who he was and the fraud that was occurring. The official promised to investigate the situation and called the police, however Korotkov was detained instead. They charged him with illegally obtaining ballot papers.
At around 2am on 19 September, crime reporter Dina Kleanthous’ car was set on fire by an unknown arsonist.
Kleanthous is a reporter for the online news site Reporter Online. She believes the act is not personal, but a response to her work. Kleanthous had recently been receiving threats regarding a story she was covering.
Dunja Mijatović, a representative for the Freedom of Media in the OSCE, said: “This blatant attempt to coerce a journalist who is reporting on news of public interest is simply unacceptable, I urge the authorities to investigate this incident thoroughly and bring to justice those responsible.”
Hilal Mammadov, the editor-in-chief of the independent newspaper Tolyshi Sado, was summoned by police on 19 September. The newspaper covers the ethnic minority of Talysh in Azerbaijan.
Mammadov is a former political prisoner, sentenced to five years in prison in 2013 on spurious charges of “illegal selling of drugs”, “high treason”, and “incitement to national, racial, social, and religious hatred and hostility”. Mammadov was pardoned in March 2016.
After being summoned on 19 September, Mammadov claims the police asked him whether he was a part of a “secret opposition“ and he was forced to give the names of his family to the officials.
08 Sep 16 | Counter Terrorism, Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
(Illustration: Shutterstock)
The appalling scene on the strand in Nice on Bastille Day. The dead at the airport and in the Metro in Brussels in March. Terrorist attacks, designed to inflict the highest possible level of fear and apprehension among ordinary citizens, is now ordinary in Europe.
The stakes were raised in earnest in January 2015 with the carnage at the editorial offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, where 10 staffers were brutally murdered by terrorists.
How can such atrocities be avoided or squelched? That is the question.
We know Europeans want something to be done. Living in a perpetual state of fear is not the natural consequence of living in 21st century liberal democracies.
But neither is living in a police state, where personal privacy gives way to the exigencies of war, however unlike this war compares to ones of the past; where mere idle chatter can be misconstrued to the point that it becomes the criminal offense of glorifying terrorism.
Simply put, do our rights to personal privacy and free expression and free association vanish in order to provide a safer physical environment for our residents?
The answer, or answers are not easily arrived at; the debates are nuanced and people of good will and good character can find themselves on opposite sides of issues while both hoping for a similar outcome: peace, security and an open society that respects the inherent rights of individuals to live freely.
Under these difficult circumstances, I think it is important to make the case, once again, to protect individual rights in times of civil turmoil. To do so, I issued a statement earlier this month, as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media setting out the arguments in favour of protection.
First and foremost, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the world’s largest regional security body, appears fully on board with the notion of protection of these individual rights. The participating States, in the Astana Declaration of 2010, reiterated the commitment to comprehensive security and related the maintenance of peace to respect for human rights.
And in a Ministerial Council Decisions on Preventing and Countering Violent Radicalization that Lead to Terrorism and on Counter-terrorism that was adopted in 2015, the States confirmed the notion “..that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort.”
Furthermore, any counter-terrorism measures restricting the right to free expression and free media must be in compliance with international standards, most notably Article 19 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and strictly adhere to the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality and implemented in accordance with the rule of law.
Read alone, these pronouncements ought to put an end to any notion that the rights and values inherent in an open society should not survive the fight against terrorism. But it has not. Across the OSCE region, which comprises 57 countries from North America to Mongolia, governments are considering laws that chip away at those fundamental rights.
As a result, I have suggested that lawmakers of OSCE participating States give ample weight and consideration to the following when addressing any legislation that would affect, in law or in practice, the right of people to exercise their human rights:
- Ensure journalists’ freedom and safety at all times, including while reporting on terrorism.
- Recognize that free expression and the use of new technologies are also tools to fight terrorism by creating social cohesion and expressing alternative narratives.
- Clearly and appropriately define, in line with international human rights law, the notions of violent extremism, terrorism, radicalisation and other terms used in legislation, programs and initiatives aimed to prevent and counter terrorism.
- Acknowledge that the media has a right to report on terrorism. Requests for media blackouts of terrorist activities must be avoided and media should be free to consider, based on ethical standards and editorial guidelines, available information to publish in the public interest.
- Fully respect the right of journalists to protect sources and provide a legal framework securing adequate judicial scrutiny before law enforcement and intelligence agencies can access journalists’ material in terror investigations.
- Refrain from indiscriminate mass surveillance because of its chilling effect on free expression and journalism. Targeted surveillance should be used only when strictly necessary, with judicial authorization and independent control mechanisms in place.
- Acknowledge that anonymity and encryption technologies may be the only guarantee for safe and secure communications for journalists and therefore are a prerequisite for the right to exercise freedom of expression. Blanket prohibitions are disproportionate and therefore unacceptable, and encryption regulation introducing “backdoors” and “key escrows” to give law enforcement and intelligence access to “the dark web” should not be adopted.
- Only restrict content that is considered a threat to national security if it can be demonstrated that it is intended to incite imminent violence, likely to incite such violence and there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood of occurrence of such violence.
- Review applicable laws and policies on counter-terrorism and bring them in line with the above principles.
Adherence to these simple rules is necessary because limiting the space for free expression and civic space advances the goals of those promoting, threatening and using terrorism and violence.
If we give up on our fundamental freedoms we will erode the very substance of democracy and the rule of law.
Recent columns by Dunja Mijatović
Dunja Mijatović : Turkey must treat media freedom for what it really is – a test of democracy
Dunja Mijatović: Why quality public service media has not caught on in transition societies
Dunja Mijatović: Chronicling infringements on internet freedom is a necessary task
10 Aug 16 | Belarus, Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, mobile, News and features
Despite repeated calls by international organisations for reform, Belarus’ regime for press accreditation continues to help the government maintain its monopoly on information in one of the world’s most restrictive environments for media freedom.
The government of president Aleksandr Lukashenko uses the Law on Mass Media to control who reports and on what in an arbitrary procedure that is open to manipulation. While Article 35 sets out journalists’ rights to accreditation, Article 1 of the law defines the process as: “The confirmation of the right of a mass medium’s journalists to cover events organised by state bodies, political parties, other public associations, other legal persons as well as other events taking place in the territory of the Republic of Belarus and outside it.”
By outlining credentialing as a system providing privileges for journalists, Belarus’ accreditation structure is contrary to international standards. The law allows public authorities to choose who covers them by approving or refusing accreditation. It also denies accreditation to journalists who do not work for recognised media outlets. Even journalists who report for foreign outlets must be full-time employees to be able to be accredited by the Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In practice, the law blocks freelance journalists or independent media outlets from covering the activities of the government and makes accreditation a requisite for a career in journalism. Only journalists who work for state-run outlets are accredited to report on state ministries, parliament or local governments.
Though refusing accreditation does not mean a total ban on a journalist’s professional activities, it creates obstacles to access to information. This discriminatory structure is especially acute for freelance journalists and those who work for independent media outlets.
In May 2016, the local government of Baranavichy district, in the Brest region, refused to accredit Julia Ivashka, a reporter for independent newspaper Intex-press. An official letter said the local government does not intend to expand the list of media outlets which are permitted to cover its sessions. The three currently accredited are state-run.
Under the mass media law, freelance journalists who do not have a contract with an outlet have no legal right to ask for accreditation. At the same time these independent reporters do not enjoy the same rights as journalists who work for accredited media outlets, they can also be targeted by the police, who use the lack of accreditation as a pretext to block freelancers from exercising their professional duties.
On 24 June 2016, police officers prevented independent journalists Yuliya Labanava and Ales Lyubyanchuk from filming a public discussion on the planned construction of a new Minsk shopping mall. Police officers then threatened to remove them from the room altogether if they asked any questions.
On 13 May 2016, the ministry of information refused to accredit а correspondent and cameraperson working for BelaPAN – the main independent news agency in the country – at the XI Belarusian International Media Forum in Minsk. This decision prevented BelaPAN from covering the event. The Ministry of Information did not comment on the reasons for the rejection.
Since April 2015, when Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project began monitoring threats to media freedom in the country, there have been 28 verified incidents involving blocked access that took place in Belarus. Most of these reports involved freelance or full-time journalists working for independent news outlets, who lack accreditation.
“Belarus’ strictly controlled media environment is part of the government’s overall control of the press and information. The number of reported incidents seems low until you consider that Belarus is one of the most restricted countries in Europe, as it’s considered the continent’s ‘last dictatorship’. This arbitrary and capricious accreditation system must be reformed,” Hannah Machlin, Mapping Media Freedom project officer at Index, said.
In 2014 OSCE representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović called on Belarusian authorities to repeal accreditation requirements for foreign and national journalists. “Accreditation should not be a license to work and the lack of it should not restrict journalists in their ability to work and express themselves freely,” Mijatović said.
In the same year the UN Human Rights Committee considered the case of Maryna Koktysh, a journalist working for the independent newspaper Narodnaya Volya. Koktysh was denied accreditation to the House of Representatives of the National Assembly, the lower chamber of the Belarusian parliament. The UN concluded that by creating obstacles to obtaining information, the government violated Koktysh’s right to free expression and recommended a review of Belarusian legislation to prevent similar violations in the future.
28 Jul 16 | mobile, News and features, Turkey
Büşra Erdal, one of 89 journalists subject to arrest, surrendered in Manisa and was taken to police headquarters in handcuffs.
Media freedom must be treated for what it really is: a strong test of democracy. And any response to a crisis requires a cautious approach if basic civil liberties, the building blocks of any free society, are to be protected. Make no mistake about it, in the case of Turkey, we are faced with a situation where authorities are violating the basic human right of Turkish citizens to engage in free media.
Just consider the following media freedom issues that have taken place after the attempted coup in Turkey on 15 July.
- The authorities have ordered the closure of 45 newspapers, 15 magazines, 16 television channels, 23 radio stations, 3 news agencies, and 29 publishers;
- Arrest warrants have been issued against 89 journalists, accusing them of supporting terrorism; seven of them have already been detained;
- 370 journalists at the state broadcaster TRT have been suspended;
- Press accreditations for 34 journalists from eight other Turkish media outlets have been revoked;
- 60 staff members with Cihan News Agency have been fired;
- The Radio and Television Supreme Council of Turkey (RTÜK) has cancelled the licenses of more than 20 radio and television stations;
- The Telecommunications Authority (TIB) has blocked more than 20 news websites.
These issues must also be put in the context of the general, sharply deteriorating media freedom situation in Turkey in the past few years. An anti-terror law in Turkey, in effect since 1991, is being used to round up terrorists but also many others, including those who it is my job to lobby for – journalists and media.
Today there are dozens of journalists in jail in Turkey, prosecuted and convicted mostly under a law designed to fight terrorism and protect people. The number of journalists jailed in Turkey is without precedent in the OSCE region. Under the anti-terror law, merely reporting on controversial topics could land a journalist in court.
The latest case in a string of the recent crackdown activities on media in Turkey is the detention of seven journalists in the last two days, while arrest warrants were issued against several dozens more, accusing them of supporting terrorism. To say that dissenting voices, although still present and persisting, are under duress in Turkey is a severe understatement.
The authorities’ systematic abuse of media and its players, done with the intention of guaranteeing control of the media landscape, is nothing short of a clear and present threat to democracy in the country.
Media-freedom advocates like myself, must and will continue to raise our voices and provide the defenses necessary for free expression and free media to flourish in Turkey.
I will raise the issue of the rights of media and of journalists before national legislatures. I will engage in public awareness campaigns on behalf of free media. I will continue to do everything in my power to protect and safeguard the independent and pluralistic voices that are the cornerstones of any society. And I will call on elected officials to spend the resources, including political capital, essential to build environments conducive to free expression.
I believe that a society that respects human rights is working towards the common good of its people and that limiting and breaching fundamental democratic and civil liberties negatively affects the common good. I also believe that the role of elected officials is to write good laws and appoint good law enforcement authorities, including police, prosecutors and judges to interpret those laws in a manner that will make free expression possible.
All democratically elected governments must adhere to the underlying rules of their society – free markets, universal suffrage, access to government information and other basic civil liberties, including a free and pluralistic media environment.
Freedom of expression is a universal and basic human right; it does not stop at views deemed appropriate by the authorities. It remains the role of journalists to inform people of public issues, including highly sensitive issues. And it remains the role of the authorities to ensure that journalists, no matter how critical or provocative, can do so freely and safely. Turkey fails on this account.
More commentary from Dunja Mijatović
Why quality public service media has not caught on in transition societies
Chronicling infringements on internet freedom is a necessary task
Propaganda is ugly scar on face of modern journalism
More about Turkey
Yavuz Baydar: Erdogan is ruling Turkey by decree
Can Dündar: Turkey is “the biggest prison for journalists in the world”
Turkey’s film festivals face a narrowing space for expression
