Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Election fever has completely gripped the Indian media. Though general elections are scheduled for 2014, the news cycle regularly carries rumours of early elections every time another corruption scandal breaks. Pundits, analysts and party spokespersons, appearing on television every night, attempt to connect with India’s growing middle classes. And a big topic of conversation: the potential for social media to become a game changer in the next election, Mahima Kaul reports from New Delhi.
India’s large population and increasing teledensity, especially in urban pockets, has spurred an impressive jump in the number of people online. Moreover, a recent report released by the Internet and Mobile Association of India and IRIS Knowledge Foundation has revealed that of India’s 543 constituences, 160 can be termed as ‘high impact’ — that is, they will most likely be influenced by social media in the next general elections. As the report explains, high impact constituencies are those where the numbers of Facebook users are more than the margin of victory of the winner in the last Lok Sabha election, or where Facebook users account for over 10% of the voting population. The study then goes onto declare 67 constituencies as medium-impact, 60 as low-impact and 256 as no-impact constituencies.
On 17 January, the European Parliament endorsed a resolution addressing ongoing human rights violations in Bahrain. The resolution, led by Dutch European Parliament member Marietje Schaake, called for “targeted EU sanctions against human rights violators in Bahrain”. The country has faced ongoing unrest since protests for reform began in February 2011, and the country’s security forces have been condemned internationally for using excessive force against protesters. Schaake condemned the usage of “tear gas and bird shots fired at close range”, as well as a lack of consistency in the judicial system — citing the inconsistencies in the cases of both activists and doctors jailed for treating protesters. The resolution also criticised the country’s failure to implement reforms based on recommendations issued by the Bahrain Independent Commission for Inquiry in November 2011, which was commissioned by King Hamad. In addition to clamping down on protests, Bahrain has also taken measures against activists online.
Meanwhile, human rights defender Said Yousif was released on bail today, but must return to court on 29 January on charges of spreading “false news with the intention of damaging state security.” Yousif was arrested on 17 December while monitoring a protest in Manama, Bahrain’s capital.
Said Yousif was released on bail today
A journalist in Somalia who was arrested for interviewing an alleged rape victim has been accused of fabricating the story by Somalia’s police commissioner. General Sharif Sheikhuna Maye issued a statement on 16 January saying that Lul Ali Hassan, who claimed she had been raped by Somali soldiers on 10 January, was bribed by journalist Abdiaziz Abdinur and members of a women’s rights group into concocting a false story. The general said the alleged victim told police she was offered extra rations and money at the displaced women’s camp she had been living in. Medical examinations, he also said, had proven that there was no evidence of a rape occurring.
Dutch football club Ajax Amsterdam has been fined by UEFA, after fans protested the prices of football tickets during a game. During the Champions League match at home to Manchester City in October, fans held banners displaying messages saying “80 euros for the away section is ridiculous,” with others holding banners emblazoned with offensive messages to Chelsea, Manchester City, Red Bull Salzburg and Red Bull Leipzig. The club was fined €10,000 (roughly GBP£8,400) for the “display of a provocative and inappropriate banner.”
An Iranian human rights lawyer who was jailed for defending several human rights activists in court was temporarily released on 17 January. Nasrin Sotoudeh was released on leave for three days from Evin prison, a period that could be extended. Sotoudeh was arrested in September 2010 under charges of promoting propaganda under the regime and acting against national security — initially sentenced to 11 years in prison, but reduced to six years upon appeal. Sotoudeh, an award-winning legal defender of free speech, has criticised death penalties issued to minors. While in prison she went on hunger strike to protest her treatment. She was denied visits from her children and husband, as well as access to lawyers.
Social networking and news websites in Tajikistan were blocked by the government, news sources reported yesterday (17 January). Sites were blocked under Tajikistan’s Association of Internet Service Providers, but remained accessible under other network providers. Asomuddin Atoev, head of the Association of Internet Service Providers said that the government’s communication department ordered the blocking via SMS. Communications chief Beg Zuhurov said the sites would return in “two or three days”, claiming the disappearance of the websites was due to a technical issue. Last year, over 130 websites were blocked for “technical repair” ahead of the December elections.
From journalists murdered for chasing stories of illegal mining to exploding packages delivered to newspaper offices, India battled with a range of free expression and censorship issues in 2012, a report released this week by media watchdog The Hoot shows.
Harassment in the form of stone-throwing, physical assault and even bullets was meted out to journalists exposing the underbelly of India, especially when reporting on cases of deep corruption by politicians.
The arts also saw censorship in the form of cancelled shows due to objections of themes such as homosexuality, and the much-publicised cancelled visit of Salman Rushdie to the Jaipur Literary Festival due to “security concerns”.
Section 66A of the IT Act 2000 also made headlines when ordinary citizens were arrested for criticising politicians on social media platforms, leading to massive public outrage.
Read the full report here
The Gulf monarchies have, in recent years, invested considerable resources and efforts in finding ways to censor interactions between their citizens, and between their citizens and other parties. As such, each new communications technology that has become available in the region has either been sponsored by the state, for example, the state-backed newspapers, radio stations, and television stations; or it has been blocked, such as unpalatable foreign newspapers, unwanted foreign radio and television signals, satellite broadcasts and foreign books.
A case can even be made that the internet itself — predicted by many to lead to sweeping changes in such tightly controlled societies — was also successfully co-opted by the Gulf monarchies, at least in the early days. The blocking of offensive websites, including blogs critical of the regimes, has occurred, while many other basic internet communications methods such as email or messenger software can either be blocked or — more usefully — monitored by the state so as to provide information and details on opponents and opposition movements.
Moreover, some Gulf monarchies have actively exploited internet communications, arguably having done so much better than most governments in developed states, with an array of e-government web services having been launched, most of which allow citizens to feel more closely connected to government departments and helping to echo the earlier era of direct, personal relations between the rulers and ruled.
Meanwhile, the rulers themselves have often established presences online, and their self-glorifying websites usually also feature discussion forums to facilitate interaction between themselves (or rather their employees) and the general public. Many other lesser ruling family members, ministers, police chiefs, and other establishment figures in the region have also set up interactive Twitter feeds and Facebook fan sites for the same purposes, and some of these are now ‘followed’ by thousands of citizens and other well-wishers.
Unsurprisingly, all six Gulf states have slipped further down Reporters Without Borders’ latest World Press Freedom Index. In 2012, the highest ranked Gulf monarchy was Kuwait — in 78th position — with the UAE, Qatar, and Oman ranked firmly below dozens of African dictatorships, and Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ranking among the very worst countries in the world. Although superficially successful in the short term in limiting opposition voices, the various censorship strategies employed have been leading to heightened fears and widespread criticism and condemnation of the regimes responsible, not only from the international community, but also from resident national and expatriate populations, and most especially in the wake of the region’s “Arab Spring” revolutions.
Nevertheless, the seemingly unstoppable wave of new, participatory and user-centred Web 2.0 internet technologies — from social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to video-sharing site YouTube — seem to be finally having the expected impact on the region’s population and its political consciousness. While these and other Web 2.0 applications can still be blocked in their entirety by cautious regimes, this is now unlikely to happen in the Gulf monarchies, as the inevitable outcry from the large numbers of users would be difficult or perhaps impossible to appease.
Inevitably these applications are being increasingly used to host discussions, videos, pictures, cartoons, and newsfeeds that criticise ruling families, highlight corruption in governments, and emphasise the need for significant political reform and increasingly even revolution in the Gulf. Leading opposition figures are now attracting as many followers on these applications as members of ruling families. While there have been some attempts by regimes to counter-attack against this cyber opposition, often by deploying fake social media profiles so as to threaten genuine users, or by establishing so-called “honey pot” websites to lure in activists and help reveal their identity, for the most part the applications are effectively bypassing censorship controls and the mechanisms used to control earlier modernising forces.
As such they are facilitating an unprecedented set of horizontal connections forming between Gulf nationals and between Gulf nationals and outside parties — connections which are crucially now beyond the jurisdiction or interference of the ruling families and their security services.
Christopher Davidson is the author of Dubai: The Vulnerability of Success