Following the Foreign Secretary’s speech to the House of Commons on the GCHQ links to the Prism scandal, we the undersigned condemn the collection and surveillance of British citizens’ online communications and activities through the US Prism programme. We equally condemn the worldwide reach of this monitoring.
National security should not be used by governments to justify mass surveillance, either domestically or abroad. Such programmes directly undermine the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, chilling free speech and giving rise to self-censorship. This is not about the targeted surveillance of criminals or security risks but surveillance of private citizens on a massive scale – through the US government security services, which British citizens cannot hold democratically to account.
William Hague’s claims on Sunday that innocent citizens have ‘nothing to fear’ are the sort of justification of population-wide monitoring that we might expect from China, not the UK. Mass surveillance chills freedom of expression and undermines our fundamental rights to freedom of expression and privacy.
We call upon William Hague and David Cameron to protect the privacy and free speech rights of British citizens and to help end the mass online surveillance of individuals around the world. We also call on EU Presidents Barroso and van Rompuy to stand against mass surveillance and to uphold the EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy, which states “increased global connectivity should not be accompanied by censorship or mass surveillance”.
Index on Censorship
English PEN
Privacy International
Open Rights Group
Article 19
For more information, please contact Pam Cowburn: [email protected], 07749785932
Widespread self-censorship and fear of causing offence is suppressing creativity and ideas in the United Kingdom, according to a conference report published by Index on Censorship.
The findings are based on the January 2013 conference ‘Taking the Offensive – defending artistic freedom of expression in the UK’ — the first national debate about the social, political and legal challenges to artistic freedom of expression.
The conference was hosted by Jude Kelly, OBE, artistic director of Southbank Centre. The keynote speech was delivered by Nicholas Serota, director of Tate. It brought together arts leaders with senior police, lawyers, media and internet executives, religious commentators and arts funders to explore challenges to artists and the growth of self-censorship in contemporary culture.
There are multiple pressures on artistic freedom of expression and censorship has become a major issue for the arts sector in this country, the report reveals. Among the key findings:
• Widespread self-censorship at an institutional level is suppressing creativity and ideas, with some artists from black and ethnic communities experiencing additional obstacles
• Worries about public and media ‘outrage’ or the loss of funding if they cause offence are causing many cultural institutions to be overly cautious in their choice of work at commission and production stages
• The fear of police intervention or legal action is fuelled by a lack of information about the legal framework around freedom of expression
Some of the pressures on artistic free expression in the UK can be explained by a climate of caution and security consciousness. A preoccupation with risk assessment in arts organisations and public institutions, including the police, can lead to a prevalence of uncontentious, safe programming that limits both the range of voices and the space for artistic expression.
Throughout the day-long conference, there was a recurring call for programmers and producers to reclaim controversy; to embrace the disagreement and discord that is inherent to art work that engages with socially sensitive subjects. Many participants stressed the importance of art that explores challenging questions and the contribution that debate, generated by artwork, makes to democracy. Greater transparency about decision making, greater co-operation between organisations and more open debate with the public were seen as key components to any strategy to reinforce support for freedom of expression.
The full conference report is available in PDF or online here
Theresa May’s comments on the Andrew Marr Show have lead to a round of speculation around the actions that the Home Secretary will take in the wake of Woolwich, especially in regard to the shelved Communications Data Bill.
Home Secretary Theresa May appeared on the Andrew Marr Show. See the video. (Photo: BBC)
Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:
“May is using Woolwich as an excuse to argue for bringing back a totally disproportionate measure of population-wide data collection that no democracy should countenance. The law already allows for those inciting violence to be prosecuted. The best way to contest hate speech is with more speech not less speech. The government shouldn’t be creating lists of who should and shouldn’t appear on TV.”
May told Marr on Sunday, “we need to see if there are additional steps we should be taking to prevent radicalisation”.
May told the BBC One host that the government would be looking at banning orders, as well as the role of Ofcom.
“There is no doubt that people are able to watch things through the internet that can lead to radicalisation,” she said.
