NEWS : FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and HUMAN RIGHTS

Thailand: Grandfather sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for anti-monarchy text messages

2011-11-30T19:46:00.001-08:00

Thailand: Grandfather sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for anti-monarchy text messages

Amphon Tangnoppaku, also known as Ar Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison on 23 November 2011 by a Thai criminal court for sending four text messages deemed as insulting against the Queen of Thailand. This is the heaviest sentence ever handed down for a lèse-majesté case.

Amphon was convicted for violating both the lèse-majesté law (Article 112 of the Penal Code) and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, but was sentenced under the lèse-majesté law which allows for heavier penalties. Amphon is to serve, consecutively, five years imprisonment for each text message. Amphon was accused of sending these text messages to the personal secretary of ex-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva during the street protests in May 2010.

“This verdict is shocking and shows the Thai authorities’ complete disregard for freedom of expression,” says Dr Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director. “We were encouraged last month when the government admitted that the use of the lèse-majesté law can adversely affect freedom of expression, however this latest development proves those words to be empty. We are saddened for Amphon and this extreme injustice.”

During Thailand’s human rights review before the United Nations Human Rights Council last month, ARTICLE 19, and a number countries including France and Norway publicly stated that the lèse-majesté law, by its very existence, constitutes a threat to legitimate political expression and freedom of expression. Many other nations including Indonesia and Brazil expressed concerns and recommended reform of the laws.

ARTICLE 19 is also alarmed about the lack of reliable or compelling legal evidence in this conviction. Although the judge conceded that the technical evaluation of evidence could not conclusively incriminate Amphon, the court proceeded to find him guilty.

Since his arrest on 3 August 2010, Amphon has been detained without bail and will likely be moved to a high penalty prison on Friday 25 November 2011. ARTICLE 19 is deeply concerned about Amphon’s welfare, as he suffers from laryngeal cancer and lacks access to proper medical treatment.

ARTICLE 19 calls for the immediate reversal of Amphon’s conviction and for his immediate release. Whilst under government authority, Amphon must be given proper medical care to ensure his well-being. Furthermore, ARTICLE 19 continues to call for the lèse-majesté law to be repealed and for the Computer Crimes Act to be brought in accordance with the Thai constitution and international standards.
ARTICLE 19

60 Farringdon Road

London, England EC1R 3GA

Bahraini forces rape, kill female poet

2011-06-08T17:51:00.000-07:00

Bahraini forces rape, kill female poet
Bahraini poet Ayat al-Ghermezi
Thursday Apr 21, 2011

A female Bahraini activist who has composed anti-government poems has been killed, after being arrested and raped by Manama forces.

Ayat al-Ghermezi, 20, had recited her poems, in which she slammed the ruling regime and Bahraini Prime Minister Khalifah Ibn Salman al-Khalifah, during protests in Pearl Square in the capital city, Manama, Fardanews reported.

Shortly afterwards, Ghermezi received an influx of insulting and intimidating letters and emails, but when she referred to the police to report the threats, she was insulted and mocked by officers, her family says.

In late March, security forces raided Ghermezi's home twice, threatening her family to reveal Ayat's whereabouts, otherwise they would “destroy the house over your heads, by the order of high-ranking officials.”

After the security forces coerced Gehrmezi's family into disclosing her hideout, the family heard no word from her, Ayat's mother said.

When the family started searching for Ayat, the police told them they have no information about Ayat and tried to force them to confirm through a letter that their daughter had gone missing.

In mid-April, an anonymous call was made to Gehrmezi's family, informing them that Ayat was in coma at an army Hospital.

At the hospital, doctors confirmed that Ayat had gone into coma after being raped for several times.
Eventually, the physicians' efforts failed to save Ayat's life and she died at the army hospital.

So far, several other women, including doctors, university professors and students, have been kidnapped or arrested by Bahraini security forces.

Since mid-February, thousands of anti-government protesters in Bahrain have poured into the streets, calling for an end to Al-Khalifa dynasty, which has ruled the country for almost forty years.

On March 13, Saudi-led forces were dispatched to the Persian Gulf island at Manama's request to quell the countrywide protests.

According to local sources, dozens of people have been killed and hundreds arrested so far during the government clampdown on the peaceful demonstrations.

This is while the independent sources in Bahrain have not yet commented on this matter.

source : Press TV

---------------------------------

Journalist brutally assaulted by members of ruling party's youth wing

2011-06-08T16:54:00.000-07:00

8 June 2011

source: IFEX

Journalist brutally assaulted by members of ruling party's youth wing

(Freedom Forum/IFEX) - A serious incident involving an attack on a journalist has come to Freedom Forum's attention. The incident occurred on the evening of 5 June 2011 in the city of Biratnagar, southeastern Nepal.

Members of the Youth Force (YF), a sister organisation of the ruling Communist Party of Nepal Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), attacked Khilanath Dhakal, a reporter for the "Nagarik" national daily paper. The journalist was criticised for having reported on an attack by YF cadres on a police team at the Morang district court.

Dhakal was brutally beaten by a number of YF cadres, including the driver of the group's district chairman, Parshu Ram Basnet. The reporter's nose was broken and he suffered serious injuries to his head and other parts of his body.

The attack was orchestrated by Rohit Koirala, who heads the YF in Biratnagar. He approached the journalist near the district education office and took him to a secluded area under the pretext of having a conversation. Dhakal was then surrounded by the YF cadres and brutally beaten.

Managing to escape, Dhakal was picked up by a police patrol and taken to hospital. "If the police had not come across me on time, I would have been finished off right there," the journalist was quoted as saying in "Nagarik" newspaper.

The reporter has filed a complaint with the police. On 7 June, local journalists also submitted a written complaint against Basnet and his aides, Koirala and Manoj Rai, at the Morang District Police Office.

In response, Basnet, who is the prime accused in the attack, warned the journalists of "dire consequences" if the complaint lodged against him and his two aides was not withdrawn.

"He (Basnet) called me today, saying the complaint can be withdrawn even after it lands in the office of the government attorney and warning us to take it back," journalist Gokul Parajuli told a gathering of fellow reporters on 7 June. "He said he has given us a chance to withdraw the complaint and asked us to consider this option."

The police arrested Koirala on 7 June but Basnet and Rai are still at large. The police administration has been reluctant to arrest Basnet, which suggests that the Morang district chairman has likely been given political protection.

Meanwhile, the legislature has condemned the brutal attack. Addressing a parliamentary meeting on 7 June, UCPN (Maoist) Spokesman Dinanath Sharma said, "The incident of a journalist being attacked by the members of the prime minister's own party's youth organization, the Youth Force, is very serious. The incident sends the wrong message to the people."

Freedom Forum condemns the attack on Dhakal and wishes for his speedy recovery. It strongly urges the CPN-UML, and its sister organisation the YCL, not to repeat such inhuman acts which are an assault on the free press, human rights and democracy.

Freedom Forum also condemns the threats issued against the journalists by Basnet. It urges the government and other concerned authorities to immediately arrest the prime accused and bring him to book in accordance with the law. If he is not sanctioned, impunity will prevail and journalists will face increasing insecurity. Moreover, it would be an indication that media freedom is being gagged by the weakening democracy in the country.

Source:

Freedom Forum
P.O. Box: 24292
Thapathali, Kathmandu
Nepal
info (@) freedomforum.org.np
Phone: +977 01 4102022
Fax: +977 01 40102030

Nominate someone for the Gleitsman International Activist Award

2011-06-08T16:51:00.000-07:00

25 May 2011

Nominate someone for the Gleitsman International Activist Award

Source : IFEX
Harvard Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership is seeking out the next winner of its Gleitsman International Activist Award. Nominate individuals you believe have initiated great social change in their communities or countries. The deadline for nominations is 30 June 2011.

The award will be given in the fall of 2011 and includes a $125,000 prize and a specially commissioned sculpture designed by Maya Lin, the creator of the Vietnam War Memorial. Past honorees include Nelson Mandela, Muhammad Yunus, and, most recently, Karen Tse, founder of International Bridges to Justice.

Please note that the award is not presented posthumously, nor is it granted to groups or organisations. Self nominations cannot be considered.

Missing journalist found dead

2011-06-08T16:39:00.000-07:00

8 June 2011

Missing journalist found dead; newspaper bombed

Noel López Olguín

And in a separate attack in the northern state of Coahuila two days earlier, a grenade was thrown at the headquarters of a newspaper that exposed organised crime and corruption, report the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and other IFEX members.

A columnist for the newspaper "La Verdad de Jáltipan", López was kidnapped on 8 March by gunmen in two SUVs. His body was found after an organised crime leader arrested by the Mexican army confessed to killing the journalist.

According to RSF, the journalist had appealed to the public to report abuses by the authorities and organised crime. He had also worked for the weeklies "Noticias de Acayucan" and "Horizonte" in Veracruz. But drug-related violence has fostered a culture of fear in the region, and after he was kidnapped media outlets either denied knowing López or said he had contributed to their publications a long time ago, presumably because they feared reprisals, reports CPJ.

Veracruz is a major transit point for drugs being trafficked to the U.S. and the much-feared paramilitary group Los Zetas is said to be very active around Jáltipan, the town where López Olguín lived and worked.

In Saltillo, Coahuila state on 30 May, a grenade was lobbed at the headquarters of an independent and prestigious newspaper, the "Vanguardia" - the oldest and largest newspaper in the city. No one was injured, but the newspaper did not report the grenade in its print or online editions due to fear of more attacks. The paper has received threats in the past for its reports.

In 2010, more than a dozen news facilities in the country were attacked with either guns or explosives. "In Mexico, organised crime continues to spread terror among members of the media without any consequence. The government of President Felipe Calderón must not tolerate criminal intimidation of the press into silence," said CPJ.

G8: New Unjustified Internet Restrictions Would Hamper Free Flow of Information

2011-06-03T07:43:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE

May 2011

G8: New Unjustified Internet Restrictions Would Hamper Free Flow of Information

Paris 26.05.2011: ARTICLE 19 is very concerned by apparent efforts by the G8, led by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, to impose tighter controls of the Internet. ARTICLE 19 once again calls on all states, including G8 member states, not to violate their freedom of expression obligations by imposing unjustifiable restrictions on the Internet. They should instead follow the recommendations in the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom expression’s new report, which emphasise the applicability of international human right standards to the Internet.

During his address to the e-G8 Forum in Paris on 24 May 2011 - which included leaders of the world’s most powerful Internet companies but few representatives from civil society - President Sarkozy asserted that there is a “collective responsibility” upon G8 states to forge a global consensus on rules relating to the Internet. He told delegates at the meeting that the internet is not a parallel universe where legal and moral rules do not apply. Previously, he has repeatedly called for the development of a “civilized internet.” According to AFP, the G8 is reported to be developing a statement which will call on states to develop new rules to promote "respect for the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the protection of intellectual property.”

“ARTICLE 19 strongly urges all G8 states to reject any attempt to impose stricter regulations of the Internet. To the contrary, we urge G8 states and other states to fully implement their international human rights obligations on freedom of expression with respect to Internet access according to the UN Special Rapporteur’s specific recommendations,” said Dr Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director.

At this time of heightened debate on Internet-based speech, ARTICLE 19 welcomes the important and timely report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, on the internet and freedom of expression, which will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council on 3 June 2011.

The UN Special Rapporteur expressed “deep concern” about “increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor and identify activists and critics, criminalisation of legitimate expression, and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify measures,” as well as the lack of transparency surrounding such measures, particularly when they appear to be used to prevent the dissemination of information that is embarrassing to governments.

ARTICLE 19 strongly endorses the UN Special Rapporteur’s recommendations, which stipulate that there should be as “little restriction as possible to flow of information via the Internet, except in a few, exceptional and limited circumstances.”

ENDS

NOTES :

• For media inquiries, please contact Mona Samari, Senior Press Officer, +44 (0) 7515 828 939 mona@article19.org
• For more information, please contact: Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer sejal@article19.org +44 20 7324 2500
• The G8 is meeting in Deauville, France, on 26 and 27 May 2011
• For the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue 16 May 2011 A/HRC/17/27, please click of the following link:
http://www.article19.org/pdfs/reports/report-of-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-promotion-and-protection-of-the-righ.pdf
• For ARTICLE 19’s summary of the key points of the Special Rapporteur’s report, please click on the following link:
http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/summary-report-on-internet-and-freedom-of-expression-the-report-of-the-un-sp.pdf

Help free political artist Ai Weiwei

2011-05-18T21:24:00.000-07:00

Help free political artist Ai Weiwei

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei with his installation "Sunflower Seeds", at its unveiling at the Tate Modern in London, October 2010

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei disappeared into police custody on 2 April at Beijing Capital Airport as he was preparing to board a flight to Hong Kong. He has not been charged and the state has not disclosed where he is being held. The Chinese government is now attempting to erase every trace of his art and life from the Internet. Avaaz is urging you to sign a petition that calls on international galleries and artists to stop exhibiting art in China until Ai Weiwei is freed.

In his artwork, Weiwei, a leading cultural figure and political artist, has delved into the tragedy and injustice surrounding the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. He tried to compile a list of all the dead children in "Missing". His installation "Remembering" used 9,000 children's backpacks to spell out a grieving mother's words: "She lived happily for seven years in this world." His studio has been trashed by authorities and he has been beaten for his investigations into the deaths of these school children, reports Index on Censorship.

An editorial in the "Southern Metropolis Daily" on 12 May remembering the victims of the earthquake and alluding to Ai Weiwei's work vanished from the newspaper's website within hours of being posted, reports the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). The editorial promised to "offer up porcelain sunflower seeds" in memory, referring to Weiwei's "Sunflower Seeds" exhibit of 100 million porcelain seeds, on display at the Tate Modern in London right now.

According to Human Rights Watch, the artist's detention was carefully planned. On the day of his arrest, security officers raided his art studio in Beijing and took eight staff members, his wife Lu Qing and a lawyer friend in for questioning; all were released the same day. Weiwei's prominent Beijing lawyer Pu Zhiqiang has not been able to see his client. State media were instructed to not report the case and references to Weiwei's arrest were censored on the Internet. On 6 April an article in a state-run newspaper said Weiwei would pay the price for being an activist.

"Only sustained international pressure can help Ai Weiwei now," said Human Rights Watch.

Two journalists who reported on the artist's activism have disappeared, reports the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Furthermore, academic and documentary filmmaker Ai Xiaoming, a supporter of Weiwei, reported that her front door was recently sealed shut from the outside with superglue; she has received a hundred silent phone calls.

To sign the Free Ai Weiwei petition, which will soon be delivered at the Venice Biennale exhibition, click here.

Source : IFEX

New UN resolution turns away from religious defamation concept

2011-04-27T00:54:00.000-07:00

6 April 2011
New UN resolution turns away from religious defamation concept

A Christian holds a wooden cross during a rally to condemn the assassination of Pakistan's Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti in Lahore in March 2011. Bhatti was killed for challenging Pakistan's blasphemy law
A Christian holds a wooden cross during a rally to condemn the assassination of Pakistan's Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti in Lahore in March 2011. Bhatti was killed for challenging Pakistan's blasphemy law
REUTERS/Mohsin Raza

The United Nations' top human rights body has abandoned its condemnation of religious "defamation" and instead passed a resolution supporting an individual's right to freedom of belief - a move long awaited by IFEX members.

Rather than reintroducing the religious defamation resolution, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) presented a new resolution at the last Human Rights Council session that focuses on ending religious discrimination.

"Combating Discrimination and Violence", which passed unanimously on 24 March, removes all references to protecting religions from criticism and shifts the emphasis to protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, explains PEN American Center.

ARTICLE 19 and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), which have led the campaign against "religious defamation", said the new resolution is a "significant breakthrough for the Human Rights Council and the international human rights system as a whole."

"This new resolution focuses on protecting an individual's freedom of religion by employing and protecting the very right 'defamation' called into question - namely, freedom of expression," said Bahey Eldin Hassan, the director of CIHRS.

Previous resolutions over the past decade backed largely by the OIC sought to criminalise any criticism of religion that believers found offensive, and the concept of religious defamation evolved into one of the UN's most polarising debates. ARTICLE 19 and CIHRS have long argued that the concept has been used to justify limits on free expression - like validating countries' blasphemy laws that have led to the jailing of religious minorities and repression of political dissidents who speak out against their government.

The new resolution advocates for concrete measures and policies to be adopted, such as developing collaborative networks and monitoring mechanisms, and training government officials to speak out against intolerance.

It stresses the importance of an "open public debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue [which are] among the best protections against religious intolerance," Hassan points out.

"If maintained in future UN resolutions, the shift is a momentous one that will provide an important framework to combat discrimination, while upholding existing human rights norms," said Hassan. "By adopting this text the international community has reinforced the principles of freedom that the people of Egypt and other countries in the Arab region have fought so hard to uphold."

Supporting Freedom of Speech and Wikileaks‏

2011-04-13T20:56:00.000-07:00

Supporting Freedom of Speech and Wikileaks‏

STATEMENT

11 April 2011

Supporting Freedom of Speech and Wikileaks

ARTICLE 19 joins free speech activists in a letter supporting Wikileaks and defending the right to publish leaked information in the public interest.

We believe that free societies everywhere are best served by journalism that holds governments and corporations to account. We assert that the right to publish is equal to, and the consequence of, the citizen’s right to know. While we believe in personal privacy and accept a need for confidentiality, we hold that disclosure in the public interest is paramount. Liberty, accountability and true democratic choice can only be guaranteed by rigorous scrutiny.

We defend the right to publish the truth responsibly without obstruction and persecution by the state. The primary duty of journalists everywhere is to advance the cause of understanding, not to assist governments and powerful interests in suppressing information, and never to defer to ingrained habits of secrecy.

With these principles in mind, we declare our support for the publication of documents released through leaks. They have cast significant light on the behaviour of governments and corporations in the modern world. Wikileaks has done the world great service. We strenuously denounce the threats of death and criminal prosecution of its director for publishing, together with many organisations throughout the world, information that is clearly in the public interest.

Those in authority routinely oppose such disclosure, as they have done since the struggle to publish the proceedings of the British parliament over 200 years ago right through to the release of the Pentagon Papers. We believe no democracy has ever been harmed by an increase in the public’s knowledge and understanding. Therefore, we, the undersigned, declare our unyielding support for the principles of journalistic inquiry and openness, and condemn the forces that threaten both.

Supported by: ARTICLE 19, English Pen, International Federation of Journalists, The Newspaper Guild, OpenDemocracy, Reporters Without Borders,

FURTHER INFORMATION:

• Signed along with many others: Lisa Appignanesi, John Berger, Fatima Bhutto, Rachel Billington, Rosie Boycott, Heather Brooke, Noam Chomsky, Patrick Cockburn, Steve Coogan, Jeremy Dear, Molly Dineen, Ariel Dorfman, David Edgar, Daniel Ellsberg, Bill Emmott, Richard Eyre, Woody Harrelson, Sue Hollick, Hugh Hudson, Will Hutton, Helena Kennedy, Imran Khan, Phillip Knightley, Hanif Kureishi, Mike Leigh, Kim Longinotto, Edward McMillan-Scott, Terry McDonell, Michael Moore, Philip Pullman, David Puttnam, Salman Rushdie, Richard Sambrook, Susan Sarandon, Alexandra Shulman, Tom Stoppard, Oliver Stone, Laura Wade, Marina Warner, AN Wilson.
• For more information please contact: Oliver Spencer, oliver@article19.org +44 20 7324 2500

Artist Alert: March 2011‏

2011-04-13T20:55:00.001-07:00

Artist Alert: March 2011‏

Artist Alert: March 2011

Art, in any form, constitutes a key medium through which information and ideas are imparted and received. Artist Alert, launched by ARTICLE 19 in 2008, highlights cases of artists around the world whose right to freedom of expression has been curtailed and abused, and seeks to more effectively promote and defend freedom to create.

Tunisia: Artists step into the light

The Dignity Revolution has resulted in an opening of the arts scene in Tunisia as the harsh restrictions on importing books and films came to an end on 22 January. According to Magharebia, bookshops no longer need to covertly smuggle publications into the country, and are taking orders for books on issues as previously controversial as La Régente de Carthage, on the president’s wife’s corruption.

Tunisian artists who had only been able to publish anonymously on the internet, such as rapper Hamada Ben Amor, aka The General, are now able to openly practice their art in public. Amor, who became famous for a song about corruption, ‘President, your people are dead’, was arrested on 5 January for several days during the revolution.

Pakistan: Arts council bans dancing

The Lahore Arts Council has banned all dance performances in theatres with the exception of classical dance. According to Pakistan’s Express Tribune, the Council made the decision in order to promote “quality” theatre. In Pakistan, scripts have to be approved first by the city’s arts council, then by the regional arts council and finally by the central Home Department. Unfortunately, rather than reject the ban outright, Commercial Theatre Producers Association chairman, Chaudhary Zulfiqar Ahmad, has instead called for the creators of such “vulgar” dances to be barred from producing more.

Heera Mandi, the famous dancing women in Lahore, have also been forced to stop their classical dancing as the police claim they can no longer provide security against attacks by violent conservative groups. The women, who, according to ActionAid, are often mistakenly believed to work in the sex trade, dance and sing usually for male clientele. The BBC reports that most music festivals, theatres performances and other artistic celebrations that Lahore was once known for, have ended.

China: Ai Weiwei still detained despite protests by international community

China’s leading artist-activist remains in the custody of the government despite pressure from the international community to release him. The Chinese government detained Ai and have since alleged the arrest was based on ‘economic crimes’. Both the United States and the European Union have raised concerns over the detention of Ai, claiming his arrest came as a response to the artist’s criticism toward the Chinese government’s violation of human rights. In particular, Ai said that the government used the 2008 Olympic games as “propaganda” and he blasted the country’s “disgusting political conditions”. The Chinese foreign ministry claimed that his arrest “had nothing to do with human rights or freedom of expression”.

United Arab Emirates: Festival denies claims of censorship

The Sharjah Art Foundation has denied claims of “unwarranted censorship” after it dropped controversial documentary by American-Iranian film director Caveh Zahed, according to a report in The National. The film, Plot for a Biennal, was set to screen at the festival in mid-March but was banned because the foundation’s lawyers believed it might promote blasphemy. One scene showed children dancing and throwing their shoes in the air, overdubbed with the call to prayer. Another showed the children kneeling for prayer to the sound of a Bollywood song. Jack Persekian, the foundation director, supported the decision to drop the film, claiming “scenes juxtaposing shots of children with an inappropriate soundtrack would offend Muslims”. Zahed countered the claims and argued that the foundation’s decision was a violation of artistic freedom.

In addition, according to reports in the New York Times, Sheik Sultan bin Muhammad al-Qasimi, the ruler of the emirate Sharjah, has ordered Persekin, to be fired. The orders came as a result of numerous complaints about the artwork, “It Has No Importance” by Mustapha Benfodil, displayed in a public square. The work featured a group of headless mannequins with sexually explicit “Arabic slogans and poetry, some making reference to Allah”. The curators who chose the work defended Persekian, who was not involved in the selection of the piece and denied it was meant to offend. They told the New York Times the words in the work “borrowed the voice of the victims of rape at the hands of religious extremists in Algeria (...) who used religious texts to justify their crime.”

Germany: Performance photography banned

A court in Germany has ruled that a display of performance photos in Museum Schloss Moyland was “an incorrect deformation of the original performance”. According to a report by The Art Newspaper, the court ruled in favour of the widow of performance artist, Joseph Beuys, who claimed that the original piece, which was staged during a television show, should not be represented through photos. However, photographer Manfred Tischer’s images remain the only visual record. The museum’s director, Bettina Paust, argued that the decision “abolishes the medium of ‘performance photography’ as now every photograph of a happening is a ‘deformation of the original’.”

United States: Homosexuality censored and un-censored

A United States supermarket, Harps, covered with a ‘family shield’ a magazine showing a picture of Elton John and his husband with their newborn child. Following complaints from shoppers, a Harps store manager deemed the picture to be “offensive” and put a protective shield on it to stop customers from looking through the magazine in January. Harps representatives defended their decision, claiming that the decision was in response to the complaints of the customers and did not reflect the point of view of the store. After receiving scrutiny from international organisations, the store management reversed their decisions and uncensored the magazine.

Fred Zinnemann’s 1953 film about soldiers in Pearl Harbour, From Here to Eternity will be reissued digitally in May. The re-release will feature the gay scenes in James Jones’ 1951 novel which had been originally edited out of the film. One scene includes Private Angelo Maggio - played by singer Frank Sinatra – who reveals that he is paid to have oral sex with another man. The film also covers a military investigation into a case of homosexuality.

Spain: YouTube censors art depicting young Europeans enjoying life

YouTube deleted a documentary in February about the Spanish artist Juan Francisco Casas saying that it “violated company policy relating to nudity and sexual content”. The film, entitled “10 things about Juan Francisco Casas”, showed screen shots of Casas’ work, some of which depicted young adults being partially naked. Casas declared that his work reflects a carefree and hedonistic European generation that “thrives on organising parties and exploring their sexuality”.

United Kingdom: Wrexham Council bans ‘sensitive’ Cameron-Clegg artwork

Wrexham Council has decided to ban a print of UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy-Prime Minister Nick Clegg dressed as partially naked cowboys amid concerns it is “politically sensitive”, says a report by the BBC. The print, set to be featured at the Oriel Wrecsam gallery at the end of March, was deemed to be “inappropriate”. The council said the decision was made as they had to “follow strict guidelines prior to an election”, which take place on May 5th 2011. The artist, Brian Jones, responded to the gallery’s decision by claiming they were practicing censorship. “It’s not party political, I’m not on a mission to topple the government, it’s just the backdrop to what’s going on with job losses, prices going up and cuts,” Jones told the BBC.

NOTES :

• For more information: please contact Oliver Spencer, oliver@article19.org, +44 20 7324 2500
• ARTICLE 19 is part of the Coalition for Arts, Human Rights and Social Justice, www.artsrightsjustice.net

Vote for your favourite free expression blog

2011-04-05T03:48:00.000-07:00

30 March 2011

Vote for your favourite free expression blog

The search is on for best blog! Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in conjunction with German media group Deutsche Welle wants you to vote for your favourite blog from anywhere in the world that defends free expression, as part of the Best of the Blogs Awards (the BOBs). Hurry, voting closes on 11 April.

This year, choose the winner in 17 categories, including the RSF award, which aims to support bloggers in countries where freedom of speech and press are limited - and goes to a blog that takes a strong stance for freedom of information all over the world.

There are also awards for Best Blog, Best Use of Technology for Social Good, Best Social Activism Campaign, Best Human Rights Blog, Best Video Channel, and best blog in each of the BOBs' 11 contest languages.

Jury members have already pared down the 2,101 blogs, social media projects and social good campaigns you submitted to the BOBS to just 11 finalists per category. Kudos to IFEX member the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) in Indonesia, whose blog has made the cut for the RSF award.

So get voting! The blogs and projects with the most votes will be named the winners of the BOBs User Prizes on 12 April.

UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize open for nominations

2011-02-09T01:58:00.000-08:00

12 January 2011

UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize open for nominations

Guillermo Cano

UNESCO

Organisations working in the field of journalism and free expression are invited to submit nominations for the 2011 UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize. The deadline for submissions is 15 February 2011.

Named in tribute to the Colombian journalist who was killed in 1986 for criticising the country's drug lords, the US$25,000 award honours a journalist or organisation that has made a notable contribution to the defence and promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially if this involved risk.

Last year's award went to Chilean journalist Mónica González Mujica, who investigated human rights violations of General Augusto Pinochet and his family, and was imprisoned and tortured for her work from 1984 to 1985.

The award will be presented on 3 May 2011 in Washington D.C. on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day. This year's theme is 21st century media.

Human Rights Watch accuses UN of being soft on abuse

2011-02-09T01:54:00.000-08:00

26 January 2011

Human Rights Watch accuses UN of being soft on abuse

Human Rights Watch's annual report on human rights has faulted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other major leaders for taking a soft approach of "quiet dialogue" and "cooperation" to avoid publicly singling out countries that abuse human rights.

The 649-page "World Report 2011" accuses Ban, who is up for re-election later this year, of acting timidly in dealing with powerful Security Council members like China, even portraying oppressive governments in a "positive light" to avoid controversy.

"In recent years the use of dialogue and cooperation in lieu of public pressure has emerged with a vengeance at the UN, from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to many members of the Human Rights Council," wrote executive director Kenneth Roth in the introduction.

As an example, Human Rights Watch cites Ban's failure to congratulate Liu Xiaobo, the choice for the Nobel Peace Prize that enraged Chinese officials, or to call for his release from jail. Ban has, however, espoused the value of "quiet diplomacy" in approaching leaders like President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Burmese leader Senior General Than Shwe.

His soft approach echoes through the system, with United Nations country teams reticent to speak out on abuses in places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, the report says.

Other organisations and leaders besides the UN are criticised. For instance, Human Rights Watch says, the European Union is a regular offender of trying for "constructive dialogues."

"Even when the EU issues a statement of concern on human rights, it is often not backed by a comprehensive strategy for change," says Human Rights Watch. The report also points to the EU's unwillingness to address rights abuses by its own member states, especially in the face of rising intolerance against migrants and inadequate access to asylum.

U.S. President Barack Obama's "famed eloquence ... has sometimes eluded him when it comes to defending human rights.," says the report. The U.S. has been mute on human rights abuses with important bilateral partners like China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, it contends.

Emerging powers like South Africa, Brazil and India have also developed "quiet demarches" to countries like Burma and Sri Lanka, the report says.

"Dialogue and cooperation have their place, but the burden should be on the abusive government to show a genuine willingness to improve," Roth says. "In the absence of the demonstrated political will by abusive governments to make change, governments of good will need to apply pressure to end repression."

Human Rights Watch's 21st annual review of human rights practices around the globe summarises major human rights issues in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide.

Click here to access "World Report 2011".

Source : IFEX

UN HRC: International Community Urge Nepal to Address Impunity and Protect Journalists

2011-02-01T22:43:00.001-08:00

PRESS RELEASE

25 January 2011

UN HRC: International Community Urge Nepal to Address Impunity and Protect Journalists

Geneva, 25.01.2011: At the tenth session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group today, countries from around the world recommended the Nepali government immediately address the growing impunity in the country, and protect journalists and human rights defenders from attacks.

“The international community has come together during today’s review to highlight the growing concern about impunity in the country and call for the government to address the worrying situation,” said Dr Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director.

ARTICLE 19 attended the UPR of Nepal, during which impunity was by far the most repeated issue by the delegates, with reference to the continuous attacks against media workers and human rights defenders in Nepal.

The Czech Republic, Canada, France and the United States of America recommended the government of Nepal safeguard the security of journalists and implement adequate measures for the protection and investigation of crimes against journalists and human rights defenders.

The Czech Republic specifically called for thorough investigation and prosecution into the case of the murder of female reporter Uma Singh in 2009. Norway also recommended the government to investigate attacks against female journalists and prosecute the perpetrators. France urged the government to address the lack of enforcement of the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and information.

Impunity was also addressed by Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland and the UK.

In response, the government of Nepal pledged to tackle impunity and address the human rights concerns of the delegates. But the government was unwilling to accept the role of the Nepali Army in the continuation of widespread impunity, arguing that: “the Nepali Army are fully supportive of human rights and any issues are not supported by policy … The Nepali Army is the source of Nepali democracy.”

The recommendations made by the international community at the UPR of Nepal, were in line with those made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) stakeholders’ report, to which ARTICLE 19 and Freedom Forum jointly contributed.

In their joint submission in August 2010, ARTICLE 19 and Freedom Forum highlighted five areas of concern, including (1) killing of and violent attacks against journalists and human rights defenders, (2) impunity for attacks and political protection, (3) freedom of expression in the Interim Constitution and overall legal framework fail to meet international standards, (4) regulation of the media fails to promote independence and transparency, (5) the government has failed to give a full effect to the right to freedom of information.

ENDS

NOTES :

• For more information please contact: Oliver Spencer, Advocacy Officer, ARTICLE 19, at oliver@article19.org or +44 7837833893 (in Geneva to 27 Jan 2011); or Krishna Sapkota, Freedom Forum, at info@freedomforum.org.np or 977-1-410-2030 (in Kathmandu, Nepal).

• For a copy of ARTICLE 19 and Freedom Forum’s Submission to the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review, see: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/submissions/nepal-report.pdf

• The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was established in 2006 as a way for the UN Human Rights Council, a set of country delegations elected to represent each region worldwide, to review the human rights situation in every state that is a member of the UN

• ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech.

• Freedom Forum is an independent, non-governmental and not-for-profit civil society organization working for the causes of democracy, protection and promotion of human rights, press freedom, freedom of expression and right to information in Nepal.

UN HRC: Widespread Condemnation of Burma at Human Rights Review

2011-02-01T22:40:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE

UN HRC: Widespread Condemnation of Burma at Human Rights Review

Geneva, 27.01.2011: The Burmese government was today urged by countries around the world - during the tenth session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group - to end violations of the right to freedom of expression and other human rights, prosecute perpetrators of human rights abuses, and begin a process of real reform in the country.

“Burma sent a large delegation to the review, who claimed to have achieved a number of human right successes,” says Dr Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director. “But the presence of an even larger group of Burmese civil society representatives, coupled with widespread condemnation of the country’s human rights violations conveyed the severity of the human rights situation.”

Countries including the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Maldives, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United States of America raised concerns about the systematic violation of a number of basic human rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of assembly and association. Norway specifically called for the abolition of the Press Scrutiny Board and the Broadcasting Censorship Board, both of which are mandated to approve all media content. ARTICLE 19 echoed these concerns in its submission to the UN UPR of Burma in August 2010.

UN Human Rights Council country delegations - apart from India and China who remained silent throughout the review - called on the Burmese government to immediately ratify and implement the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights as well as other international human rights instruments relating to refugees, racial discrimination, enforced disappearance, child labour, child soldiers. Although the release of Aung San Suu Kyi was welcomed, many countries called for the release of all 2,100 political prisoners.

The Czech Republic delegation was the first to highlight the Burmese government’s lack of engagement in the UPR process. Several other delegations also expressed disappointment that the government failed to answer any questions previously submitted by member states.

During the review, the Burmese government stated that it undertook their own investigation into alleged human rights violations, raised by the UN Special Rapporteurs and other international actors, and found them to be “unverifiable and turned out to be false.” They added that “in practice, we have very well trained judges and the media is allowed to sit in the court. Judges are trained to be fair and impartial ... it is little known to the world that many of our laws are the same as international human rights instruments.”

ENDS

NOTES :

• For more information please contact: Oliver Spencer, Advocacy Officer, ARTICLE 19, at oliver@article19.org or +44 207 324 2500.
• For a copy of ARTICLE 19’s submission to the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review, see: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/submissions/union-of-myanmar-article-19-submission-to-the-un-universal-periodic-review.pdf
• The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was established in 2006 as a way for the UN Human Rights Council, a set of country delegations elected to represent each region worldwide, to review the human rights situation in every state that is a member of the UN.
• ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech.

Draft General Comment No. 34 on Freedom Of Opinion & Expression

2011-02-01T22:37:00.000-08:00

STATEMENT

Draft General Comment No. 34 on Freedom Of Opinion & Expression

Geneva 31.01.11: ARTICLE 19 has submitted a Statement to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations detailing its concerns on Draft General Comment No. 34 relating to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on freedom of opinion and expression.

In ARTICLE 19’s opinion, the Draft is a progressive interpretation of the right to freedom of expression as protected by Article 19 of the ICCPR. We welcome in particular the following features of the Draft:

• The statement that State parties should ensure that “persons are protected from any acts of private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of freedom of opinion and expression;”
• The recognition that States parties “must take particular care to encourage an independent and diverse media ... access to the media for minority groups;”
• The explicit recognition that Article 19 of the ICCPR encompasses “a general right of access to information.”

However, ARTICLE 19 is concerned by a number of weaknesses in the Draft which ought to be addressed before it is finalised. Most notably, the Draft:

• Overlooks a number of important aspects of the legal protection for the right to information, including the need for an independent and autonomous oversight body, proactive disclosure of information by public bodies and the protection of whistleblowers;
• Fails to highlight basic principles concerning the exercise of freedom of expression through information and communications technologies (ICTs);
• Fails to affirm the right of journalists and others not to disclose their confidential sources;
• Fails to assert a clear and unequivocal position against all criminal defamation laws and laws prohibiting blasphemy or “defamation of religions.”

To assist the Human Rights Committee in finalising General Comment No. 34, ARTICLE 19’s Statement elaborates on these and other shortfalls of the Draft, as well as providing recommendations to overcome them. ARTICLE 19 submitted its Statement which includes 35 recommendations to the Human Rights Committee on Friday 28 January 2011.

ENDS

NOTES :

• For more information please contact Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer, +44 20 7324 2500 sejal@article19.org
• For draft General Comment No. 34 (upon completion of first reading by the Human Rights Council) 25 November 2010 CCPR/C/GC/34/CRP.5 visit www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/unhrc-comment-34.pdf
• ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech.

IPI's top 10 press freedom stories of 2010

The year 2010 ushered in a number of major setbacks for the media across the globe, says the International Press Institute (IPI), from the numerous journalists murdered in Pakistan and Honduras to the oppressive media laws passed in South Africa. But what did IPI consider to be the number one press freedom event of 2010?

The 12 January earthquake in Haiti claimed nearly 300,000 lives, including those of 30 journalists, and virtually destroyed the country's media industry. A year later, many journalists continue to be out of work and others are striving to produce news about the earthquake's impact as well as the effects of the resulting cholera outbreak. For those reasons the earthquake tops IPI's press freedom events of the year.

Just across the way was IPI's number two story: Cuba's release of more than 50 jailed dissidents, including 29 journalists, many of them jailed in the "Black Spring" of 2003. Among those journalists released was Omar Rodriguez Saludes for whom IPI ran a "Justice Denied" campaign over the past several years. Saludes, like the other released prisoners, now lives in Spain.

Number three on the list was the nine journalists murdered in Honduras, and the fact that in not a single case was anyone convicted of the slayings.

At least 44 journalists killed for their work in 2010, say IFEX members

2011-01-10T07:06:00.000-08:00

"When journalists are targeted, the truth dies" - a banner from Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)

At least 44 journalists killed for their work in 2010, say IFEX members

Radio reporter and cable news presenter Henry Suazo was gunned down on 28 December in front of his home in La Masica, Honduras, for reasons not yet known, reports the Comité por la Libre Expresión (C-Libre). His murder - the 10th journalist to be killed in Honduras this year - confirms Honduras as one of 2010's deadliest countries for the press, alongside Pakistan, Mexico and Iraq. According to IFEX members, between 44 and 97 journalists and media workers were killed in 2010 in connection with their work or while on the job.

Before Suazo's death, an investigation by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) found that Honduran authorities had been careless and inattentive in investigating a series of journalists' murders. For instance, in the March murder of television anchor Nahúm Palacios Arteaga, "Honduran authorities conducted virtually no investigation in the aftermath, taking no photographs and collecting no evidence at the crime scene," said CPJ. Only months later, once the case had attracted international attention, did authorities exhume the body to conduct an autopsy.

CPJ records 44 journalists killed in direct connection to their work; in crossfire; or while carrying out a dangerous assignment in 2010. CPJ is investigating another 31 journalist deaths last year, including Suazo's, to determine whether they were work-related.

In its annual report, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) counts at least 57 journalists killed in the line of duty - a 25 percent decrease from 2009, when 32 journalists and media workers in the Philippines were massacred while travelling in an election convoy. Journalists were murdered in 25 countries - the largest number of places since RSF began keeping tallies on journalist murders.

RSF also notes a major increase in the kidnapping of journalists - 51 in 2010 (compared to 29 in 2008 and 33 in 2009).

"Journalists are turning into bargaining chips. Kidnappers take hostages in order to finance their criminal activities, make governments comply with their demands, and send a message to the public. Abduction provides them with a form of publicity," said RSF. According to RSF, journalists were particularly exposed to this kind of risk in Afghanistan and Nigeria in 2010.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), which compiles figures in cooperation with the International News Safety Institute (INSI), says that 97 journalists and media workers were killed last year. IFJ includes all journalists and media personnel killed because of their work, as well as those killed in accidents while on assignment or on their way to or from a story.

The International Press Institute (IPI) records 66 journalists and media staff in its Death Watch - those who were deliberately targeted because of their investigative reporting or because they were journalists, or because they were caught in the crossfire while covering dangerous assignments.

According to IPI, the most dangerous place in 2010 for journalists was Mexico, with 12 journalists and media workers killed - many at the hands of drug cartels.

Meanwhile, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), which compiles figures from the reports of all IFEX members, says in its annual review that 87 journalists in 2010 were killed or targeted in the line of duty because of their reporting or affiliation with a news organisation.

Despite the range in numbers, all agree that Pakistan was one of the world's most dangerous countries for the press. At least eight journalists were killed for doing their job, with six of them killed in suicide attacks or crossfire during militant strikes, according to CPJ.

"The deaths of at least eight journalists in Pakistan are a symptom of the pervasive violence that grips the country, much of it spilling over from neighbouring Afghanistan," said CPJ. "For many years, journalists in Pakistan have been murdered by militants and abducted by the government. But with the rise in suicide attacks, the greatest risk is simply covering the news. Journalists must put their lives on the line to cover a political rally, a street demonstration, or virtually any major public event."

Rounding up the top four most murderous countries for the media were Iraq, Honduras and Mexico. According to CJFE, the countries share common traits: their governments have "failed utterly to protect the safety of journalists" and killers of journalists are not being brought to justice.

Against this background, the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) is hoping to send a message throughout the Western Hemisphere that 2011 is the "Freedom of Expression Year" - and will be focusing on raising public awareness about violence against the media, such as through its impunity campaign to "Lend your voice for those who have no voice".

Meanwhile, INSI is pledging to "support those who most need it" - providing free safety training to journalists overseas, updating its safety advice for news media, and working with some of the world's leading journalism schools to create a safety course for journalism students. It is also creating a database of all physical attacks against the news media around the world.

IFEX members speak out on WikiLeaks

2010-12-04T06:59:00.000-08:00

1 December 2010

IFEX members speak out on WikiLeaks

First some background: according to the "Guardian", there are 251,287 dispatches in all, from more than 250 U.S. embassies and consulates. "They reveal how the U.S. deals with both its allies and its enemies... all behind the firewalls of ciphers and secrecy classifications that diplomats assume to be secure."

WikiLeaks posted a selection of the cables on Sunday, while the "Guardian" has published bits independently but simultaneously with "The New York Times", "Der Spiegel" in Germany, "Le Monde" in Paris and "El País" in Madrid. The papers have redacted information likely to cause reprisals against vulnerable individuals and have sought stories of public interest.

"We're more or less satisfied with WikiLeaks' evolution," the head of RSF, Jean-Francois Julliard, told AFP. "We like this partnership with the newspapers and this work to put things in context, verify the information and draw lessons from it," he said.

ARTICLE 19 reiterated its call for governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment. Those rules are ignored far too often," said ARTICLE 19.

That view is echoed by Index on Censorship. In an editorial this week, chief executive John Kampfner lamented that in the U.K. "free speech is regarded as a negotiable commodity. An interest group's right to be offended is seen as just as important as the right to air an opinion. A government's right to secrecy is seen as more important than the public's right to know." He said that as with all free speech, when reviewing material posted by WikiLeaks, "context is key."

"It is vital to know when governments collude in torture or other illegal acts. It is important to know when they say one thing in private (about a particular world leader) and do quite another in public. It is perturbing to know that aid agencies may have been used by the military, particularly in Afghanistan, to help NATO forces to 'win hearts and minds'," said Kampfner.

He continued, "These questions, and more, are vital for the democratic debate. The answers inevitably cause embarrassment. That too is essential for a healthy civil society. Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret."

Kampfner said what is most curious is that the WikiLeaks revelations were delivered by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and not by the media, "who should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power."

All three members are adamant that Assange and other WikiLeaks contributors should not be prosecuted under state secrets or espionage legislation in the U.S. or other countries.

"It is a well established principle that public authorities bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of official information. Other persons and entities, including WikiLeaks and journalists, should never be subject to liability for publishing leaked information, unless it was obtained through fraud or another crime," ARTICLE 19 said after files on the war in Afghanistan were leaked.

Similarly, ARTICLE 19 said, whistleblowers should be protected if there is a strong public interest in the release of the information and the benefits of disclosure outweigh the harm - even if the whistleblower acted without authorisation.

RSF has for years been campaigning for a U.S. federal "shield law" to protect sources - including for sites such as WikiLeaks. According to RSF, 40 U.S. states have laws that protect the confidentiality of journalists' sources but there is no such law at the federal level. RSF pointed out that the House passed a limited version in July 2008, but with the recent scandal, senators are now trying to exclude whistleblowing websites from it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Article 19~~~~~~~~~~
10 September 2010
STATEMENT

WikiLeaks and Internet Disclosures

The current debate around WikiLeaks highlights the potential of the internet to make previously secret information of public interest widely available.

ARTICLE 19 calls for governments to improve their regimes for public access to
information, refrain from punishing WikiLeaks and other sites that are releasing
information in the public interest, and to protect and encourage whistleblowers.

ARTICLE 19 welcomes the use of the internet by new and established organisations
as a mechanism to expand and democratise the availability of sources of information.
We believe that this represents a powerful extension of the media’s role to receive
information from confidential sources and make it available to the public.

The recent debate around WikiLeaks and the disclosure of secret US government
documents related to the Afghan War Diary and Baghdad airstrike video underscores
the need for strong legal rights to be in place in all countries for the public to seek,
receive and impart information as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and other international, regional and national human rights instruments. This
includes recognition of the right to information, protection of whistleblowers, and
facilitating the media’s ability to obtain and publish information without barriers.
It should be recognised that WikiLeaks is not the only site on the Internet that
provides a forum for whistleblowers. Other sites, including Cryptome.com and
FAS.org, have provided an important public service making information of this type
available for many years.

ARTICLE 19 believes that the Johannesburg Principles on National Security,
Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, developed by a group of experts
and endorsed by the UN Human Rights Commission, is a proper starting point for
evaluating concerns related to national security information in the Wikileaks debate.
Moreover, we identified the following issues that must be considered in ensuing that
the public’s rights under international law are respected:

1. Ensuring the Public’s Right to Information
It is well established that the right of the public to information held by government
bodies is essential in ensuring democracy. Over 90 countries have adopted laws that
guarantee that right and it has been recognised in international agreements including
the UN Convention against Corruption, the UNECE Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters,

and by many international bodies including the UN, Council of Europe, African
Union and the Organisation for American States.
However, while there has been a significant increase in laws and other instruments
guaranteeing the public’s right to information around the world in recent years, access to information is still inadequate in many counties, even those such as the United States with its long history of right to information. This is particularly a problem in the area of information classified as ‘state secrets’.

Under international law, governments must show that any restrictions on access to
information are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society to protect a
national security interest. Limits on access to information should only apply to
information that governments can demonstrate would cause a specific and articulated
harm.

The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing US rules on
secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent
embarrassment. Those rules are ignored far too often.

A number of military logs in the Afghan War Diary and the Baghdad airstrike video
footage appear to demonstrate attacks on civilians by coalition forces which might
amount to violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Full official disclosure of
information about the allegations of ill treatment of civilians by the coalition forces in
Afghanistan and Iraq would allow light to be shed on what has occurred. It would also
enable a transparent and fair judicial review. Hence, the Baghdad video and much of
the material in the Afghanistan War Diary should have been subject to mandatory
disclosure under access to information laws in the respective countries of coalition
governments, where, again, the overall public interest should trump secrecy
exceptions.

2. Prosecution of Web Sites for Releasing National Security Information
There has been considerable discussion about the possible prosecution of WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks activists under state secrets or espionage
legislation in the United States or other countries. ARTICLE 19 believes that this
would be an improper use of these laws and urges all governments to refrain from
taking this step.
The statements of defence and state officials, calling for or warning of prosecution,
might amount to censorship of media at a time and on issues – the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan -– where transparency and the public right to know should govern the
government’s relationships with the media and the public.
Moreover, it is a well established principle that public authorities bear sole
responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of official information. Other persons
and entities, including WikiLeaks and journalists, should never be subject to liability
for publishing leaked information, unless it was obtained through fraud or another
crime.

3. Protection of Whistleblowers
ARTICLE 19 also believes that those who provide information to WikiLeaks should
not be prosecuted if there is a strong public interest in the release of the information.
Officials who act as whistleblowers and release information in the public interest
without authorisation should not be prosecuted for releasing information that reveals
crimes, abuses, mismanagement and other important issues in the public interest.
Although we recognise that civil servants may legitimately be placed under
obligations of secrecy, these should be limited by their obligation to serve the overall
public interest. Anyone disclosing classified information should benefit from a public
interest defence whereby, even if disclosure of the information would cause harm to a
protected interest, no liability should ensue if the benefits of disclosure outweigh the
harm. Instead, there should be strong legal protections and structures to facilitate
disclosure.
Countries should adopt comprehensive whistleblowing laws which apply to the public
and private sector and apply in national security cases. Secrets laws should recognise
that whistleblowers should be protected from prosecution and should include public
interest exemptions for revealing information such as human rights abuses and
corruption.
Countries should also enact laws based on international standards protecting
journalists from revealing their confidential sources and materials and those laws
should apply to every person who is engaged in the business of making information
available to the public.

4. Ethical Obligations of New Media
ARTICLE 19 believes that new media – including WikiLeaks and similar sites,
should follow good ethical practices to ensure that the information made available is
accurate, fairly presented and does not substantially harm other persons. While such
ethical codes have not yet been developed for new media, we believe that existing
journalistic codes provide a useful basis from which to begin.
Sites such as WikiLeaks should also recognise that technical protections to protect the anonymity of sources only have limited effectiveness. If the whistleblower is
identified through other means, they can face serious employment and legal sanctions and even physical danger.

ARTICLE 19 is not qualified to take a position on whether the release of all of the
Afghan documents by WikiLeaks was appropriate in these terms. To date, no credible
information has been made public that links the release of the information to the harm of any individual.

Recommendations:
ARTICLE 19 therefore recommends:

• The governments of coalition forces and other states should refrain from
criminal investigation and prosecution of WikiLeaks activists for the
publishing of the materials on Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their sources
• All states should adopt and properly implement right to information laws
which recognise the public interest in disclosure of information. Restrictions
on access for national security reasons should be strictly limited
• All states should adopt comprehensive whistleblower-protection laws
• State Secrets Acts should only apply to those public officials and others who
have agreed to be subject to them. Journalists and publishers should not be
liable under these laws for disclosing information of public interest. The laws
should also include public interest defences for protecting whistleblowers
• Internet sites should follow good ethical practices in their reporting activities.

NOTES

 For more information, please contact David Banisar, Senior Legal Counsel,
ARTICLE 19, at banisar@article19.org, +44 207 324 2500
 The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and
Access to Information, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information are
available at
http://www.article19.org/pdfs/standards/joburgprinciples.pdf

• ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the
world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name
from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free
speech.

ARTICLE 19, Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3GA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7324 2500 / Web: www.article19.org / Email: info@article19.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How 250,000 US embassy cables were leaked

From a fake Lady Gaga CD to a thumb drive that is a pocket-sized bombshell – the biggest intelligence leak in history

David Leigh

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010

US soldier Bradley Manning, left, who is accused of stealing the classified files and handing the database to the WikiLeaks website of Julian Assange, right. Photograph: Associated Press/AFP/Getty Images

An innocuous-looking memory stick, no longer than a couple of fingernails, came into the hands of a Guardian reporter earlier this year. The device is so small it will hang easily on a keyring. But its contents will send shockwaves through the world's chancelleries and deliver what one official described as "an epic blow" to US diplomacy.

The 1.6 gigabytes of text files on the memory stick ran to millions of words: the contents of more than 250,000 leaked state department cables, sent from, or to, US embassies around the world.

What will emerge in the days and weeks ahead is an unprecedented picture of secret diplomacy as conducted by the planet's sole superpower. There are 251,287 dispatches in all, from more than 250 US embassies and consulates. They reveal how the US deals with both its allies and its enemies – negotiating, pressuring and sometimes brusquely denigrating foreign leaders, all behind the firewalls of ciphers and secrecy classifications that diplomats assume to be secure. The leaked cables range up to the "SECRET NOFORN" level, which means they are meant never to be shown to non-US citizens.

As well as conventional political analyses, some of the cables contain detailed accounts of corruption by foreign regimes, as well as intelligence on undercover arms shipments, human trafficking and sanction-busting efforts by would-be nuclear states such as Iran and Libya. Some are based on interviews with local sources while others are general impressions and briefings written for top state department visitors who may be unfamiliar with local nuances.

Intended to be read by officials in Washington up to the level of the secretary of state, the cables are generally drafted by the ambassador or subordinates. Although their contents are often startling and troubling, the cables are unlikely to gratify conspiracy theorists. They do not contain evidence of assassination plots, CIA bribery or such criminal enterprises as the Iran-Contra scandal in the Reagan years, when anti-Nicaraguan guerrillas were covertly financed.

One reason may be that America's most sensitive "top secret" and above foreign intelligence files cannot be accessed from Siprnet, the defence department network involved.

The US military believes it knows where the leak originated. A soldier, Bradley Manning, 22, has been held in solitary confinement for the last seven months and is facing a court martial in the new year. The former intelligence analyst is charged with unauthorised downloads of classified material while serving on an army base outside Baghdad. He is suspected of taking copies not only of the state department archive, but also of video of an Apache helicopter crew gunning down civilians in Baghdad, and hundreds of thousands of daily war logs from military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It was childishly easy, according to the published chatlog of a conversation Manning had with a fellow-hacker. "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga' … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing ... [I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history." He said that he "had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months".

Manning told his correspondent Adrian Lamo, who subsequently denounced him to the authorities: "Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public ... Everywhere there's a US post, there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed. Worldwide anarchy in CSV format ... It's beautiful, and horrifying."

He added: "Information should be free. It belongs in the public domain."

Manning, according to the chatlogs, says he uploaded the copies to WikiLeaks, the "freedom of information activists" as he called them, led by Australian former hacker Julian Assange.

Assange and his circle apparently decided against immediately making the cables public. Instead they embarked on staged disclosure of the other material – aimed, as they put it on their website, at "maximising political impact".

In April at a Washington press conference the group released the Apache helicopter video, titling it Collateral Murder.

The Guardian's Nick Davies brokered an agreement with Assange to hand over in advance two further sets of military field reports on Iraq and Afghanistan so professional journalists could analyse them. Published earlier this year simultaneously with the New York Times and Der Spiegel in Germany, the analyses revealed that coalition forces killed civilians in previously unreported shootings and handed over prisoners to be tortured.

The revelations shot Assange and WikiLeaks to global prominence but led to angry denunciations from the Pentagon and calls from extreme rightwingers in the US that Assange be arrested or even assassinated. This month Sweden issued an international warrant for Assange, for questioning about alleged sexual assaults. His lawyer says the allegations spring from unprotected but otherwise consensual sex with two women.

WikiLeaks says it is now planning to post a selection of the cables. Meanwhile, a Guardian team of expert writers has been spending months combing through the data. Freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke obtained a copy of the database through her own contacts and joined the Guardian team. The paper is to publish independently, but simultaneously with the New York Times and Der Spiegel, along with Le Monde in Paris and El País in Madrid. As on previous occasions the Guardian is redacting information likely to cause reprisals against vulnerable individuals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cablegate leaks divide opinion on freedom of information

Tue Nov 30,

AFP Photo: Australian founder of whistleblowing website, 'WikiLeaks', Julian Assange holds up a copy of the Guardian..

PARIS (AFP) - WikiLeaks' mass exposure of US diplomatic cables has divided liberal intellectual opinion between supporters of total government transparency and those who see a threat to democratic rule.

While the world's press has splashed the revelations across its front pages even some journalists have begun to wonder whether too much exposure is a good thing in an era of instant global electronic communication.

"Much, but not all state information should be public," argued the Financial Times, in a leader. "In order for states to conduct their affairs effectively, and ensure the security of their citizens, some secrets must remain."

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange defended previous leaks of US military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan by declaring he was "trying to stop two wars" -- but some fear his latest stunt could provoke new ones.

News that Arab leaders and Israel are pushing for US air strikes on Iran and that China is rethinking its protection of North Korea's erratic regime has increased tensions in two of the world's most dangerous flashpoints.

And some fear that if diplomats can no longer be confident that they can exchange frank views in private, then it will be harder for capitals to resolve disputes without inflaming public opinion or angering rival players.

"In a world criss-crossed by violent conflict, a state can not permanently operate under the constant gaze of opinion," warned Laurent Joffrin, editor of France's left-wing Liberation daily, a champion of media freedoms.

The stolen cables were downloaded from a supposedly secure US government network that was set up in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 in order to allow analysts to rapidly share and compare information.

Some have expressed concern that diplomatic and intelligence agencies will retreat inside their shells and fail to prevent future attacks if clues are scattered across different, more tightly-controlled networks.

During previous WikiLeaks revelations, the group was also accused of putting the lives of US informants and locally recruited agents at risk.

Such concerns even motivated groups more usually associated with campaigning for openness and press freedom to criticise the all-or-nothing character of an operation that exposed tens of thousands of documents.

This time round, however, there has been praise for the professional investigation run by the five newspapers which got first sight of the files -- the New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and Der Spiegel.

Rather than splashing a quarter of a million cables unmediated onto the public domain, reporters from the dailies pored over them for weeks, seeking stories of public interest and evaluating the risks of exposure.

"We're more or less satisfied with WikiLeaks' evolution," said the head of independent press watchdog Reporters Without Borders, Jean-Francois Julliard.

"We like this partnership with the newspapers and this work to put things in context, verify the information and draw lessons from it," he said.

Others are less convinced and fear the leaks will erode the bonds of trust between rival capitals without really advancing the cause of open government, especially in the democratic world.

"There's demagogy and a naive faith in thinking that radical transparency will help us reach another democratic level," French political scientist Philippe Braud told AFP, branding the publication an elite parlour game.

"The enlightened few learned very little and the others still think we're hiding everything from them, which can only feed anti-democratic instincts," he said, arguing it is normal to allow leaders special rights and duties.

And, at a time when social networking sites can expose a citizen's private life at the touch of a button, some see in the WikiLeaks exposure another sign of how the Internet itself can erode freedoms.

"There's no reason that democratic checks and balances have to take the form of a sort of electronic 'Big Brother,'" complained former French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine in a newspaper op-ed.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority

29Nov10 – 10:27 am

by John Kampfner

You should never shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. Once you have accepted this old adage, you accept that there are limits to free expression. The important word in the first sentence is not “fire”, but “crowded”. A crowded theatre would lead to a stampede. Where there is a real and identifiable danger, restraint should be shown. Context is everything in the free-speech debate; risk to life is an undeniable caveat. Most other caveats are, however, mere ruses by the powerful to prevent information from reaching the public domain.

It is within these parameters that the furore over Wikileaks and its exposures should be seen. The latest document dump is larger than the Iraq files and potentially more embarrassing, with its State Department assessments of governments and statesmen – from Hamid Karzai to Silvio Berlusconi to Nicolas Sarkozy. Diplomats have launched a frantic round of damage limitation. Oh to have been a fly on the wall during the excruciating conversation between the US ambassador and Downing Street. The Americans are entitled to put their side of the story, to seek to assuage any inconvenience caused.

The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, believes the Americans are going much further than that, carrying out a concerted campaign to undermine and discredit him. I have no information on the cases that have led two Swedish women to press charges of rape and sexual harassment against him. Only those involved do. Mr Assange’s legal representatives in the UK suspect that the Swedish authorities are playing the Americans’ game, cutting corners in terms of correct legal procedures. So highly charged is the environment that it is extremely difficult to separate information from disinformation

Mr Assange is an unconventional figure, a man who lives in the shadows and enjoys doing so. He is difficult to deal with and holds himself in high regard. When he contacted me through an intermediary two months ago, suggesting that Index on Censorship host him in a London event, I was happy to accept but made clear that I did not want to give him an open forum. I would engage him in debate with a detractor.

He accepted; then he disappeared for five days, not answering phone calls or emails. When he finally surfaced, he stipulated no cameras or photographers, and that we should sneak him in through the back door. I argued that this would not look great for a free-expression organisation. In the end we compromised, and the television crews were allowed in halfway through what turned out to be a fascinating debate with the columnist David Aaronovitch. The sell-out crowd did not give Mr Assange an easy ride. But there was a virtually unanimous presumption towards free speech, something that is woefully lacking in so much of British public life.

This must surely be the starting point. In the US, with its First Amendment, restrictions are seen as an exception to the rule. In the UK, free speech is regarded as a negotiable commodity. An interest group’s right to be offended is seen as just as important as the right to air an opinion. A government’s right to secrecy is seen as more important than the public’s right to know.

The mainstream media in the UK are serial offenders. Newspapers that have no compunction about invasions of privacy or about shrill comment devote precious little time or energy to challenging authority through rigorous investigative journalism. Most political “scoops” are merely stories planted by politicians on pliant lobby hacks. Editors and senior journalists are habitually invited into MI5 and MI6 for briefings. These are affable occasions, often over lunch. There is no harm in that. What tends to happen, however, is that journalists are tickled pink by the attention. They love being invited to the “D-notice” committee to discuss how they can all behave “responsibly”. It makes them feel important. Many suspend their critical faculties as a result.

Far from being “feral beasts”, to use Tony Blair’s phrase, the British media are overly respectful of authority. Newspapers and broadcasters tend to be suspicious of those who do not play the game, people like Mr Assange who are awkward outsiders. Some editors are quite happy to help the authorities in their denunciations of him, partly out of revenge for not being in his inner circle.

All governments have a legitimate right to protect national security. This should be a specific, and closely scrutinised, area of policy. Most of our secrecy rules are designed merely to protect politicians and officials from embarrassment. Documents are habitually over-classified for this purpose. The previous government made desperate attempts to stop legal evidence of its collusion in torture from reaching the public. Ministers argued, speciously, that this was to protect the “special intelligence relationship” with Washington. It will be intriguing to see how much information is allowed to be published when Sir Peter Gibson begins his official inquiry. Precedent suggests little grounds for optimism.

As with all free speech, as with Wikileaks, context is key. It is vital to know when governments collude in torture or other illegal acts. It is important to know when they say one thing in private (about a particular world leader) and do quite another in public. It is perturbing to know that aid agencies may have been used by the military, particularly in Afghanistan, to help Nato forces to “win hearts and minds”.

These questions, and more, are vital for the democratic debate. The answers inevitably cause embarrassment. That too is essential for a healthy civil society. Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.

Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr Assange to be the conduit. Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.

John Kampfner is the chief executive of Index on Censorship

Islamists' Twin Assault on Free Speech

2010-11-14T15:59:00.000-08:00

Islamists' Twin Assault on Free Speech

Daniel Huff is director of the Middle East Forum's Legal Project, which defends the free speech rights of authors and activists commenting on radical Islam and related issues. A graduate of Columbia Law School, he previously served as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee to then Ranking Member Arlen Specter, handling a host of national security, civil and criminal matters. On October 28, he addressed the Middle East Forum via conference call on the twin assault Islamists have launched against free speech rights.

According to Daniel Huff, the first assault is a legal attack. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is shaping international law at the UN to prohibit criticizing Islam. Their proposed ban on "defamation of religions" would silence even the most legitimate discourse. For example, he cited a 2008 presentation in the Human Rights Council on Islam and female genital mutilation which was halted after two OIC member countries objected to the discussion.

Mr. Huff said the First Amendment provides a "false sense of security." People assume it would invalidate any international law banning speech. However, an appellate court case held the government's compelling interest in complying with international law trumped free speech. Moreover, the Administration has softened traditional US opposition to the OIC's efforts. In 2009, the US cosponsored a resolution with Egypt calling on member states to adopt measures to cease negative stereotypes about religion particularly in the media.

Next Mr. Huff turned to the Islamists' second tactic—physical intimidation of artists or speakers. As examples, he cited Comedy Central's censorship of South Park after its creators' lives were threatened by RevolutionMuslim.com and cartoonist Molly Norris' being forced into hiding following her call to hold an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

In response, Mr. Huff proposed expanding existing federal law protecting abortion rights from extremist threats to cover free speech rights.

During question-and-answer, Mr. Huff addressed whether fired NPR reporter Juan Williams could sue on First Amendment grounds. He noted both the difficulty of establishing that NPR should be considered a government employer bound by the First Amendment and of Williams proving actual damages, because of his lucrative Fox contract.

Finally, Mr. Huff set the Legal Project's mission in a broader context. Protecting free speech is the first defense against the imposition of an Islamic order. Shielding Islam from critical examination confers upon it a privileged status. From there, it is a smooth segue to the Islamists' ultimate goal of Western inferiority and dhimmi status.

Summary written by Sean Alexander

Help determine where BlackBerry servers are

2010-11-14T14:50:00.000-08:00

10 November 2010

Help determine where BlackBerry servers are

Who's watching your BlackBerry? Thanks to the Canadian research group Infowar Monitor, you can help find out. With the recent discovery that governments are demanding access to encrypted BlackBerry data and other content, Infowar is inviting BlackBerry users to take part in Project Rim Check at http://rimcheck.org/ to find out exactly "who has access to what."

This summer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a number of other governments threatened to ban Research in Motion's (RIM) BlackBerry services if the company did not make encrypted BlackBerry data and other content available to them. A major concern of these regimes is that BlackBerry data can be encrypted and routed through servers located outside of their jurisdictions - thus making it near impossible to scrutinise.

Rumour has it that RIM has made data sharing agreements with India, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Other countries are also demanding that the company locate data centres within their jurisdictions.

Enter Project Rim Check, which will monitor BlackBerry data traffic flow and help Infowar researchers determine the location of RIM's servers - and see if RIM is indeed making any concessions.

The site will automatically collect some of your information, such as your IP address. You are asked to specify the country you are in, what type of BlackBerry service you have, and your carrier's name and location, among other options.

The project is "inspired by a broad need to monitor the activities of private sector actors that own and operate cyberspace, particularly as they come under increasing pressure to cooperate with governments on national surveillance and censorship laws," the makers told Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which has endorsed the project.

Infowar Monitor is a partnership between the University of Toronto's famous Citizen Lab, a technology and human rights research centre, and SecDev Group, an Ottawa-based think tank.

http://www.ifex.org/international/2010/11/10/locate_blackberry_servers/

Judicial harassment stifles free expression

2010-10-13T20:53:00.001-07:00

13 October 2010

Judicial harassment stifles free expression

IFJ

An ailing Tunisian journalist is languishing in jail on trumped up charges, while another faces two years in jail for being the target of a physical attack. This is just some of the evidence of how the authorities use the courts to crush dissent, says the IFEX Tunisia Monitoring Group (IFEX-TMG). Meanwhile, judges who dare to criticise the authorities are being uprooted from their jobs or are even having their salaries withheld, adds IFEX-TMG, which has stepped up its campaign to promote judicial independence.

Fahem Boukaddous, correspondent for the satellite channel "Al-Hiwar Ettunisi", is serving a four-year jail term for "forming a criminal association liable to attack persons." His crime was to report on protests against unemployment and corruption in the mining industry in Gafsa in 2008.

According to family sources, Boukaddous has difficulties breathing and speaking and his asthma attacks have increased. On 8 October, Boukaddous began a hunger strike to protest his prison conditions.

In a separate case, the authorities continue to harass Mouldi Zouabi, a journalist with the independent station Radio Kalima. He was attacked in April, but police decided not to charge the attacker. Instead, they are accusing Zouabi of violent behaviour and bodily harm. The case was referred to a higher court on 6 October, and he now faces up to two years in jail.

"This is more evidence of the way that a politicised judiciary is being used to silence free speech by denying yet another honest Tunisian journalist a fair trial. I'm positive that a truly independent court system would free Zouabi in a heartbeat," said IFEX-TMG chair Rohan Jayasekera.

The problem is confounded by the various forms of harassment of judges who criticise the authorities or demand that they work without government interference.

Since 2005, when IFEX-TMG started its fact-finding missions to Tunisia, the group of 20 IFEX members found that judges openly committed to judicial independence have been arbitrarily transferred from Tunis to remote locations, hundreds of kilometres away from their families.

Just this August, for instance, the secretary general of the legitimate Association of Tunisian Judges (AMT), Kalthoum Kennou, was moved from Kairouan, in the centre of the country, to the southern city of Tozeur.

Other targeted colleagues have seen their assignments outside the capital of Tunisia extended, have had their salaries withheld, or have been denied promotions.

IFEX-TMG is currently appealing to the International Association of Judges (IAJ), which is meeting next month in Senegal.

Find out what happens next on IFEX-TMG's recently launched Facebook page, where you can also join the call for Boukaddous's release as well as share the International Federation of Journalists's (IFJ's) poster to "set Boukaddous free".

Artist Alert: August 2010‏

2010-09-19T06:40:00.000-07:00

Artist Alert: August 2010

Zimbabwe: No show for atrocity

Works by popular visual artist Owen Maseko have been banned by the government of Zimbabwe, according to VOA. The series of video clips, effigies and paintings depict the ‘Fifth Brigade atrocities’ of the 1980s which claimed the lives of more than 20,000 civilians. The massacre perpetrated by Mugabe’s army has since been dismissed by the President as “a moment of madness”. As soon as the show was launched at the National Art Gallery, police closed the exhibit and arrested both Maseko and the museum’s Director, Vote Thebe. It is thought the latter will face charges under the Censorship and Entertainment Act for allowing Maseko to stage the exhibition without a licence.

Guatemala: Mayan musician tortured and killed

A Mayan musician has been found dead after being abducted on 25 August, reports FreeMuse. Leonardo Guarcax, a promoter and defender of indigenous Maya culture in Guatemala, was discovered the day after his kidnapping, bearing marks of torture on his body. For many years Guarcax had taught indigenous music and dance at the Sotzil Cultural Centre, advocating for the rights of Guatemala’s Mayan population. His death was not the first tragedy to befall the Guarcax family with his cousins, Ernesto and Carlos, meeting similar fates in May 2009. Leonardo’s death is a reminder of the violence continually perpetrated against those attempting to maintain pre-hispanic culture in Guatemala.

Russia: Rapper jailed for lyrical 'hooliganism'

According to online news source, ArtInvestment.ru, Russian rap idol Ivan Alekseev has been detained and subsequently jailed for ‘hooliganism.’ On 2 August, following his band’s performance at a Volgograd concert, the town’s magistrate court sentenced the rapper to ‘administrative imprisonment’ for a period of ten days. Allegedly, law enforcers at the concert were enraged when Noize MC, Alekseev’s performing name, dedicated a song critical of the Russian police force to the festival authorities, climaxing with the chorus: “A Citizen, stop-stop, the pockets, bang-bang in the kidneys.” Attempts to pacify the police resulted in Alekseev’s immediate arrest at the end of his act.

Another Russian musician, recently interviewed by the International Herald Tribune, highlighted how music as a channel for popular dissent in his country is being marginalised. Yuri Schevchuk, lead singer in Russian rock act DDT, has been an outstanding critic of the Kremlin over three decades of song-writing and performance. The rocker claims that a broadcasting blackout on political musicians continues with a subsequent trend of self-censorship, silencing political artists.

Singapore: Book tour ends for the jolly hangman

British author, Alan Shadrake, 75, has had his planned book tour severely curtailed by accusations of criminal defamation. On landing in Singapore on 19 July, Shadrake was taken into police custody and detained for a series of interrogations. The veteran writer had flown to the city-state in order to promote his new book, Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock. Shortly after his arrest, authorities ordered several bookstore chains to stop sales of the new title. Shadrake’s book is an expose of Singapore’s harsh judicial system, where a range of offenses carry a mandatory death penalty. The attorney general’s office has accused the author of trying to “impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary.” The case continues.

Austria: Chinese pressure censors gun sculpture

Following intense pressure from a Chinese delegation, a controversial UN exhibition has been censored in Vienna, reports All Voices. The Art of Peacekeeping, a monolithic fusion of decommissioned guns, reclaimed ammunition and deactivated landmines forms the centrepiece of a new show at The Vienna International Centre. The sculpture, by Sandra Bromley and Wallis Kendal, has been exhibited across the world but its current context, surrounded by photographs of violence in Tibet, led to a Chinese outcry, with complaints made to the exhibition organisers and departments within the UN. The photographs have been removed at short notice leaving the stand-alone sculpture, “We were absolutely shocked,” said Bromley. “This was done without any consultation or permission.”

Malta: The death of the artist

The Maltese Independent recently highlighted the case of Aleksandar Stankovski, a painter whose work has stirred considerable controversy in Malta and its neighbouring island of Gozo. During the celebrations that surrounded the annual Malta Arts Festival, paintings submitted by Stankovski were banned from gallery displays across the two islands, due to their nude content being labelled ‘obscene’. The ban was a sad indictment of the festival, hailed as a symbol of Malta’s pluralism and creative diversity. A local rights group, The Front Against Censorship (FAC), criticised the organisers’ decision, “Isn’t it ironic that while Malta is supposed to be celebrating culture through The Malta Arts Festival, art is still being censored?” In a dramatic response to the state censorship the FAC staged a Funeral March of Art through the capital Valetta, with participants attired in all-black, mourning the demise of Maltese art in the 21st century. The painting ban is only the latest development in a worrying trend that has marred Malta’s reputation, including the prohibition of an ‘obscene’ play and the trial of a student group for writing an ‘indecent’ story.

United Kingdom: Grassroots mown down

A Cambridgeshire festival has been crippled by continuing restrictions. The Grassroots Festival, scheduled to take place in September, was abandoned by its organisers following what they describe as aggressive interference from the local council and police. Statements on the festival’s website blame “overbearing licensing conditions” for the event’s cancellation. Mooney, one of the festival’s volunteers claimed, “They didn’t want it to happen so they played their games. They couldn’t use legislation so instead they used dirty tactics.” Constant demands for a revised programme and increased security took its toll on festival financing and repeated delays led to the event’s disbandment. Commentators said the festival’s demise reflected a common trend in local authorities using bureaucracy to stultify new events.

USA: New legal protections for video artists

A landmark legal ruling has paved the way for re-instating artists and consumers’ legal rights to legitimate use of copyrighted materials in the USA. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported on its victory in winning three critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). EFF’s Civil Liberties Director, Jennifer Granick, commented, “We are thrilled to have helped free jailbreakers, unlockers and vidders from this law’s overbroad reach.” The DMCA has been heavily criticised for infringing on free speech, fair use and competition through blanket restrictions on how individuals use digital material. The ruling is particularly welcome for video artists, whose legitimate re-mixing of content could previously have led to being sued.

Columbia: Local hero sings banned ballads

According to the International Herald Tribune, Uriel Henao is known in Columbia as the King of Corridos Prohibidos or ‘prohibited ballads’. His brand of rock and roll describes the exploits of guerrilla commanders, paramilitary warlords, lowly coca growers and cocaine kingpins alongside Columbia’s government forces. It is a historical encapsulation of the country’s protracted drug wars, an ode to many who have fallen in a decade of bitter internal conflicts. Henao is the most prominent purveyor of a genre that encompasses more than 600 bands in Columbia. In spite of its popularity the music is often shunned by radio stations and concert arenas for its graphic depiction of the drug wars. The flamboyant Henao carries on regardless, stating, “Colombia needs people like me to tell it the truth about what takes place in this country,” he said. “The truth sells.”

New international coalition for arts and human rights

A new coalition is beginning to take shape to bring together people and organisations worldwide that are interested in the intersection of arts, culture, human rights and social justice. The vision of a stronger and closer relationship was just one of the decisions taken during a conference attended by ARTICLE 19 titled ‘Intersecting networks & support for people using creativity to fight injustice’ organised in July by freeDimensional, a group linking art spaces to social justice movements on a global level. ARTICLE 19 is now looking at how best we can support this exciting initiative. More to follow!

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information: please contact Oliver Spencer, oliver@article19.org, +44 20 7324 2500 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +44 20 7324 2500 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Appeal for urgent intervention as activists are tortured for speaking out

2010-09-12T01:56:00.001-07:00

Take action!

Appeal for urgent intervention as activists are tortured for speaking out

Abdul-Jalil Al-Singace (left) protesting human rights violations.

BCHR

IFEX member Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) is urgently calling on concerned individuals to write to the Bahrain government to end the systematic torture and imprisonment of those expressing their views, including political, religious and human rights activists. Dr. Abdul-Jalil Al-Singace, Sheikh Mohammed Habib Al-Muqdad, Sheikh Saeed Al-Nori, Abdul-Ghani Khanjjar and BCHR's Dr. Mohammed Saeed are among those who have endured brutal physical and mental torture.

In an unprecedented wave of torture, detainees have been handcuffed, blindfolded, held in solitary cells, denied food and water for long periods, hung by their hands, their legs tied and their bodies beaten until swollen and bruised, deprived of sleep, and forced to listen to the screams of others being tortured.

BCHR strongly believes these arrests are connected to the activists' work in exposing human rights violations in the country. The Bahrain government is brutally silencing voices of dissent not only by prohibiting peaceful and legitimate activities related to democratic reform, but also by punishing human rights activists for engaging in these activities.

"They beat me on my fingers with a rigid instrument; they slapped me on my ears and I was pulled by my nipples and ears by tongs, and I was hit with a rigid object on my back... to force me to sign papers I had no knowledge of what was written on them," Al-Singace told a public prosecutor.

Bahrain is currently in an unofficial state of emergency with a security campaign launched against government critics. In addition, Shiite villages have been surrounded by militias, where arbitrary searches, arrests and kidnappings continue. At least 200 people have been detained. Most detainees are being held incommunicado and denied contact with lawyers and family members.

As well, state-owned media have published articles inciting sectarian tensions and smearing the reputation of the detainees, incriminating them before they are brought to the Public Prosecution and Court. The state-owned media, particularly "Al Watan", has been targeting the past and current presidents of BCHR directly as leaders in a so-called "terrorism network", although they have not been arrested. Nabeel Rajab, BCHR President, and Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, former BCHR President, were pictured in a 1 September "Al Watan" article about the violence.

The crackdown is also targeting online activists. Blogger Ali Abdulemam, who founded Bahrain's popular BahrainOnline forum, was arrested on 4 September for allegedly spreading "false news" on the BahrainOnline.org portal. His website was shut down the next day. He is a pioneer among Arab online activists and has inspired young Bahrainis and Arabs to use the Internet to engage in spirited debate. It is believed that by the government taking control of BahrainOnline, many of the users and contributors to the online forum are now at risk of being exposed and arrested.

Please write to the Bahrain government to ask them to:
- release all the detainees and especially human rights activists who have been arrested for practicing their fundamental rights to free expression and peaceful assembly;
- immediately stop the systematic torture by the National Security Apparatus, dissolve this Apparatus, bring those responsible to a public trial and redress the victims of its violations;
- allow access to the detainees by international observers;
- allow detainees to contact and meet their families and lawyers, and access appropriate health care;
- immediately stop implementing the Anti-Terrorist Law that allows arbitrary arrests and unjust trials.

Please send appeals to:
Sheikh Hamad bin Issa Al-Khalifa
King of Bahrain
Fax: +973 176 64 587

Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Al-Khalifa
Prime Minister
Fax: +973 1753 2839

Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmad Al-Khalifa
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Tel: +973 172 27 555 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +973 172 27 555 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax : +973 172 12 603

Sheikh Khalid bin Ali Al-Khalifa
Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs
Tel: +973 175 31 333 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +973 175 31 333 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: +973 175 31 284

Permanent Mission of Bahrain to the United Nations in Geneva
1 chemin Jacques-Attenville
1218 Grand-Saconnex
CP 39, 1292 Chambésy, Switzerland
Fax: + 41 22 758 96 50.
info (@) bahrain-mission.ch

Please also write to diplomatic representations of Bahrain in your respective countries.

For more information, please visit:
Bahrain Center for Human Rights

Sample letter to country embassies in Bahrain

Sample letter to Bahrain embassy officials

Two media workers killed in bomb attack; journalist kidnapped and tortured

2010-09-12T01:52:00.000-07:00

Two media workers killed in bomb attack; journalist kidnapped and tortured

A suicide bomber detonated explosives at a Shiite procession in Quetta, Pakistan on 3 September, triggering chaos, killing two media workers and injuring eight other journalists, report the Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). At least 64 people were killed and 185 injured. In a separate episode on 4 September in Islamabad, a journalist critical of the government was abducted and tortured.

Individuals at the Al-Quds rally, a protest in support of Palestinians, started firing in panic immediately after the blast. Angry protesters fired at media crews. Muhammad Sarwar, a driver for Aaj News TV, was struck by a bullet and died instantly. Aijaz Raisani, a cameraman for Samaa TV, was injured in the blast and also received two bullet wounds; he died on 6 September. Eight other reporters and cameramen were wounded. Journalists at the scene said some colleagues were wounded by the blast while others were injured by shots fired at them by demonstrators. There were also clashes with police and cars and motorcycles set on fire.

The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) pointed out that the media workers were not trained for a potentially lethal environment and no protective gear was given to them.

The next day, Umer Cheema, an investigative reporter for the English daily "The News", was kidnapped by 12 men wearing police uniforms in Islamabad. He was handcuffed and blindfolded, taken to an unknown place, stripped naked, beaten and hung upside down. The abductors warned him to stop writing about the government and threatened to target his colleague, editor Ansar Abbasi.

"The News" is highly critical of President Asif Ali Zardari and its journalists are often under attack, says RSF. The government has withdrawn state advertising from the entire Jang media group, which owns "The News".

Two targeted killings of journalists in two days; 230 journalists killed during Iraq War

2010-09-12T01:46:00.000-07:00

Two targeted killings of journalists in two days; 230 journalists killed during Iraq War

Iraqi journalists continue to be killed with impunity even after US combat troops withdraw from Iraq. Journalist Riad Al-Saray was killed this week.

ANHRI

Violence against journalists continues after the formal withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq in August. An Iraqi journalist was shot dead this week on his way to Karbala in southern Iraq when gunmen travelling in another car fired at him, report the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The next day, a television journalist was gunned down outside his home in Mosul. RSF has released a survey of media deaths during the US Army's presence in Iraq, "The Iraq War: A Heavy Death Toll for the Media".

Journalist Riad Al-Saray, 35, was killed in the early morning in western Baghdad on 7 September, according to local group Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO) and IFEX members. "We are concerned that journalists are once again becoming easy prey in the renewed violence which has rocked Iraq in recent days," said IFJ.

Al-Saray was an anchorman for Al-Iraqiya television, which belongs to the Iraqi Media Network, and wrote columns for a number of local newspapers. He joined Al-Iraqiya in 2005 and hosted programmes that sought to reconcile Shiites and Sunnis. At least 14 other Iraqi Media Network journalists have been killed since 2003.

Then, on 8 September, Safaa Al-Dine Abdul Hameed, a presenter for Al-Mosuliyah TV station was killed as he left home for work.

Just weeks after the US Army's last combat brigade withdrew from Iraq in August, RSF issued a report examining the country's seven years of occupation by the coalition forces and the impact on press freedom. RSF focused on journalists who were killed during the conflict simply because they wanted to do their jobs, noting the impunity in 99 percent of the murders of journalists and media workers since the invasion in 2003.

RSF also re-examined the more than 93 cases of journalist abductions during the war; at least 42 were later executed. Iraqi journalists were also frequently suspected of collaborating with insurgent groups and arrested, either by the newly established Iraqi administration or the US Army.

RSF concludes, "Although the US intervention in Iraq put an end to Saddam Hussein's regime and paved the way for a major expansion of the Iraqi media, the human toll of the war, and the years of political and ethnic violence which followed, were nothing short of disastrous – too many people died."

The number of media contributors killed in the country since the conflict began stands at 230, more journalists killed than at any time since the Second World War. That is more than the number of journalists killed during 20 years of the Vietnam War or the civil war in Algeria.

Venezuela: Supreme Court Restricts the Right to Information

2010-07-25T03:01:00.001-07:00

23 July 2010

Venezuela: Supreme Court Restricts the Right to Information

The Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled, in a biding decision, that a plaintiff must explain the reasons for requiring public information, which also must be limited to the scope of the intended use. ARTICLE 19 condemns the ruling and calls on the Venezuelan Government to conform their practices to international standards.

Asociación Espacio Público had appealed to the Constitutional Court following the refusal by the Office of the Comptroller General to disclose the salaries of its public officials. In its 15 July ruling, the court argued that such disclosure would violate the officials’ constitutional right to privacy.

The acceptance of the right to information will sometimes require balancing with other rights. However, best practices around the world have indicated that the public interest resulting from transparency and openness of public accounts takes precedence over the rights of civil servants to keep their salaries confidential. Also, there are ways to disclose the salaries of officials by ranks, while preserving their identity.

Furthermore, the right of access to information is based on the assumption that information held by public institutions is the property of the public, so there should be no obligation placed upon the public to explain why they need the information requested.

The right to information fosters accountability and efficiency in governments by allowing civil society groups to participate in public affairs, not only monitoring salaries, but also public policies.

ARTICLE 19 calls on the Venezuelan government to refrain from demanding the reasons behind information requests and from limiting the amount of information disclosed. We also urge the Venezuelan authorities to adopt a progressive jurisprudence on the right to information, highlighting clearly the prevalence of public interest and the proactive disclosure of public information.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information please contact: Arthur Serra Massuda, arthur@article19.org, +55 11 3057 0042.

India - Kashmir: Journalists barred from reporting on demonstrations; journalist slain

2010-07-15T11:12:00.000-07:00

India - Kashmir:

Journalists barred from reporting on demonstrations; journalist slain

Indian troops crack down on Kashmiri journalists.

via AP

Weeks of anti-India street protests have left 15 people dead in Indian-controlled Kashmir and authorities are striking hard with a complete lockdown on local coverage of the unrest. Local journalists have been beaten by police and barred from covering the government crackdown on demonstrators, and thousands of police have been deployed in the region to enforce a curfew, report the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). Authorities have also attempted to control the flow of information by shutting down publications and confiscating newspapers prior to distribution. At the same time, in two other states, a journalist was killed and an editor arrested.

Widespread demonstrations began in early June in the Kashmir Valley, and cities have been under curfew for several days. Curfew passes issued to journalists last week were cancelled. New passes were then issued to a few editors and senior journalists.

But on 9 July, BBC Urdu service journalist Riaz Masroor was stopped at a police check point and beaten as he was on his way to collect his curfew pass. And on 6 July, at least 12 photographers and cameramen working for local, national and international media suffered serious injuries after being assaulted by security forces trying to stop them from recording the demonstrations. Some had their equipment confiscated. "Senior police officers were heard remarking that without media attention the demonstrations would soon lose momentum," reports IFJ.

Many of the area's more than 60 newspapers decided to suspend publication because of the small number of curfew passes issued to staff and continued attacks on media.

In the region of Jammu, authorities sealed the premises of three publications on 2 July alleging they had carried false news reports that aggravated tensions between religious communities. The next day, two newspapers in English and Urdu, were seized. Text-messaging services remain suspended and telephone services are frequently disrupted in the Kashmir region.

But not all journalists are being denied access. Journalists flying in from Delhi, the capital, are being given armed protection and considerable freedom of movement, while local journalists are confined to their homes under curfew, say IFJ and CPJ. "The story of the ongoing troubles in Kashmir needs to be told," IFJ said. "But it also should be told by journalists based in Kashmir."

Government forces have arrested dozens of suspected separatists and activists, say news reports.

Meanwhile, in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, freelance journalist Hem Chandra Pandey was killed on 2 July while covering an armed conflict between police and Maoist cadres of the Communist Party of India. Pandey had travelled to Nagpur to interview the leader of the party. He "was well within his rights in seeking to interview an insurgent leader, especially in the context of ongoing peace moves," said IFJ.

And in another southern state, Kerala, magazine editor T.P. Nandakumar was arrested on defamation charges on 3 July after writing about an Indian businessman, who is a resident in the Gulf emirate of Abu Dhabi. Nandakumar was under court injunction not to publish any material on the businessman, the complainant. His arrest came after an article was posted on the "Crime Magazine" website. Nandakumar was released on bail the next day.

"Crime Magazine" is widely read because of its coverage of alleged misdeeds of several major political parties in the state, having a significant political impact.

Source : http://www.ifex.org/india/kashmir/2010/07/14/lockdown_slain/

Pakistan against Free Speech

2010-06-29T19:26:00.000-07:00

Pakistan is with a few other countries in Asia, uncivilised , root of corruption/violence /terrorism. Its policy keeps people illiterate, ignorant and helpless. It gags who protest for a fair deal. and violates International Law. Look back to its History.It survives on compassion of other countries. UN should do something for its People.

Pakistan poised to vote on restricting media

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10452194.stm
By Aijaz Maher
BBC News, Islamabad Pakistan's PM said that he would remove restrictions

Pakistan is poised to clamp down on the country's independent media industry.

The government has introduced a bill in parliament which, if passed, would usher in harsher regulations for broadcasters and online organisations.

It seeks to amend a law enforced by Pakistan's former military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, in a bid to regulate parts of the media.

Political analysts fear the government is using the law to rein in broadcasters critical of its policies.

The bill, which targets radio and TV and some online news services, is likely to be voted on within days.

The extent to which new media will be affected by the proposed law is unclear, while print remains unaffected.

The current government, led by the Pakistan Peoples Party, has sought to placate censorship fears by claiming that it is diluting the harsher methods introduced by the former dictator.

"We are introducing the bill after disposing of those parts introduced by Musharraf," Belum Hasnain, chairwoman of the parliament's media committee said in a statement.

'Reining in TV'

The committee has to vet the bill, known as the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Act, before parliament votes on it.

Ms Hasnain said the bill would remove restrictions on the media, as promised by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani in his inaugural speech.

However, political analysts believe that the government is using the law to rein in local television channels which have grown highly critical of its policies.

According to the bill, broadcasters in Pakistan will be banned from showing images or programming of suicide bombings, terrorists or the bodies of victims of terror attacks.

They will also be prevented from showing related material.

Further, they will not be permitted to broadcast statements by militants or extremists, or activities deemed to be connected with the spread of militancy and extremism.

The broadcaster will also be bound to assure the government that none of its programmes will promote hatred or militancy.

In addition, the law states that programmes opposing the ideology, sanctity, independence and security of the state of Pakistan cannot be broadcast.

Companies that violate the law will have their licences cancelled. They can also be fined up to 10 million rupees ($117,647; £78,740) and jailed for three years.

The bill is likely to raise questions about the government's policy on freedom of speech and dissent, which has hardened considerably over the past three months.

Pakistan has recently blocked several internet sites for allegedly promoting blasphemous content. It has also started monitoring of search engines and email providers including Google, Yahoo and Hotmail.

The electronic media regulatory bill is likely to be presented for vote before the parliament in a few days.

~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pakistan to monitor Google and Yahoo for 'blasphemy'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10418643.stm

Pakistan says the main website will be unaffected

Pakistan will start monitoring seven major websites, including Google and Yahoo, for content it deems offensive to Muslims.

YouTube, Amazon, MSN, Hotmail and Bing will also come under scrutiny, while 17 less well-known sites will be blocked.

Officials will monitor the sites and block links deemed inappropriate.

In May, Pakistan banned access to Facebook after the social network hosted a "blasphemous" competition to draw the prophet Muhammad.

The new action will see Pakistani authorities monitor content published on the seven sites, blocking individual pages if content is judged to be offensive.

Telecoms official Khurram Mehran said links would be blocked without disturbing the main website.

Cartoon controversy

The ban on Facebook was lifted after about two weeks, when the site blocked access to the page, called Everybody Draw Muhammad.

The Draw Muhammad page on Facebook sparked protests in Pakistan

Facebook itself is not on the new list of websites to be monitored. A number of links from YouTube will be blocked but not the main site itself.

Many Muslims regard depictions of Muhammad, even favourable ones, as blasphemous.

In 2007, the government banned YouTube, allegedly to block material offensive to the government of Pervez Musharraf.

The action led to widespread disruption of access to the site for several hours. The ban was later lifted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pakistan blocks access to YouTube in internet crackdown

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm

Many Pakistanis are angry at the 'Draw Muhammad' competition

Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube because of its "growing sacrilegious content".

Access to the social network Facebook has also been barred as part of a crackdown on websites seen to be hosting un-Islamic content.

On Wednesday a Pakistani court ordered Facebook to be blocked because of a page inviting people to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad.

Some Wikipedia pages are also now being restricted, latest reports say.

Correspondents say it remains to be seen how successful the new bans will be in Pakistan and whether citizens find a way round them.

Because YouTube is a platform for free expression of all sorts, we take great care when we enforce our policies.

YouTube statement Pakistanis divided over bans

YouTube says it is "looking into the matter and working to ensure that the service is restored as soon as possible". The site was briefly blocked in Pakistan in 2008 - ostensibly for carrying material deemed offensive to Muslims.

Facebook said on Wednesday that the content did not violate its terms.

There have been protests in several Pakistani cities against the Facebook competition.

'Derogatory material'

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority said it had ordered internet service providers to "completely shut down" YouTube and prevent Facebook from being viewed within Pakistan.

It said the move came only after "all possible avenues" within its jurisdiction had been used.

Analysis

Zoe Kleinman Technology reporter, BBC News

Countries, companies and even individuals can easily block various websites if they choose. China has a notorious firewall in place to control internet activity and many Western organisations choose to block access to social networks in the office.

In this case, Pakistan will probably have instructed its internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent any pages containing the phrase "youtube.com" in the address from loading on web browsers.

There are various ways of implementing a block and sometimes it can go awry - Pakistan accidentally pulled YouTube offline around the world in 2008 when it tried to implement an internal ban by "hijacking" the youtube.com address in order to re-direct links to a different page.

There are also ways to duck underneath a ban - most commonly by accessing the internet via a "proxy" server based abroad. This can fool an ISP into thinking a computer is actually based in another country and therefore not subject to the ban.

"Before shutting down (YouTube), we did try just to block particular URLs or links, and access to 450 links on the internet were stopped," said PTA spokesman Khurram Ali Mehran.

"But the blasphemous content kept appearing so we ordered a total shut down."

One of the links blocked is to a BBC News website article about Pakistani soldiers apparently beating Taliban suspects in a video posted on Facebook.

A YouTube spokesperson said: "YouTube offers citizens the world over a vital window on cultures and societies and we believe people should not be denied access to information via video.

"Because YouTube is a platform for free expression of all sorts, we take great care when we enforce our policies. Content that violates our guidelines is removed as soon as we become aware of it."

The controversy began with the Facebook feature called "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day". Depictions of the Prophet are forbidden in Islam.

A message on the item's information page said it was not "trying to slander the average Muslim".

"We simply want to show the extremists that threaten to harm people because of their Muhammad depictions that we're not afraid of them."

The page contains drawings and caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and characters from other religions, including Hinduism and Christianity.

"Such malicious and insulting attacks hurt the sentiments of Muslims around the world and cannot be accepted under the garb of freedom of expression," Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said about the page.

Facebook said in a statement that it would take action if any content "becomes an attack on anyone, including Muslim people", but that in this case its policies were not violated.

"Facebook values free speech and enables people to express their feelings about a multitude of topics, even some that others may find distasteful or ignorant," the statement said.

A hotline has been set up in Pakistan, asking members of the public to phone in if they see offensive material anywhere.

Islamic parties say they are planning nationwide protests in Pakistan.

Five people were killed in the country in 2006 during violent demonstrations following publication of Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper.

BBC website readers have been telling us what they think of the ban. Here is a selection of their comments.

I am a university student and use Facebook and Youtube as a way of interacting and staying in touch with friends. But all students are willing to give up this source of entertainment for the sake of principles.

Zahara Sohail Khan from Lahore, Pakistan

The strict policies of Facebook regarding racism and harassment are only for individual users. Now a page on Facebook is harassing billions of Muslims world-over and Facebook's management is not bothered. What hypocrisy.

Maroof from Lahore, Pakistan

I am a Muslim girl, just a normal student. When my religion is insulted, it is me who is insulted. I can live without Facebook but I definitely cannot live in humiliation. I am with my country on this and if Facebook does not take action on this, then ban or no ban, I would never go back to it anyway.

Maham Tanveer from Rawalpindi, Pakistan

As a Muslim growing up in America, I am frustrated that neither side takes the time to understand the other. For Muslims, directly insulting the sacred is beyond petty 'freedom of speech' privileges we mortals have. In the West, people think arrogantly that they are free to say anything without limits whatsoever, no matter how ridiculous or insulting.

Qureshi from Florida, USA

I am now living in Karachi, Pakistan, and I never thought I'd have to endure blocks on websites ever again after I moved from Saudi Arabia. Even though I have found a way to access blocked websites, I can't believe the government would put a ban on them.

Omar from Saudi Arabia

I did use Youtube and Facebook but I have removed my accounts from both sites and have communicated this to all my family and friends who have been using them.

Hassan Mehmood from Pakistan

This is ridiculous. I find these to be ill-advised measures. Blocking websites in countries does not prevent the content from existing in the first place. I think the Pakistani government should move to ban pornography (which is still easily available) before they ban Facebook and YouTube which are obviously on the better side of human development.

Myra from Karachi, Pakistan

This has been outrageous and infuriating. I feel disconnected from the world, from my friends, and from the easiest modes of expression available today.

Uzma from Lahore, Pakistan

It is not only Facebook and YouTube which have been blocked in Pakistan, but parts of the BBC website too, for example the link given below, many stories about Pakistan and the entire South-East Asia section. In fact, I am forced to use a proxy server just to post this comment. As a Pakistani, I feel very frustrated and angry about this crackdown on the internet and can only hope that this is temporary.

Schyan Zafar from Pakistan

Know more about Pakistan : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/country_profiles/1157960.stm

Full name: Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Population: 180.8 million (UN, 2009)
Capital: Islamabad
Largest city: Karachi
Area: 796,095 sq km (307,374 sq miles), excluding Pakistani-administered Kashmir (83,716 sq km/32,323 sq miles)
Major languages: English, Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Balochi
Major religion: Islam
Life expectancy: 66 years (men), 67 years (women) (UN)
Monetary unit: 1 Pakistani Rupee = 100 paisa
Main exports: Textile products, rice, cotton, leather goods
GNI per capita: US $980 (World Bank, 2008)
Internet domain: .pk
International dialling code: +92

------------------------------------------
This blog is non-comercial , informative and published materials. for education and information purpose. help finding wrong information will be corrected

Kenya: against Harmful Speech

2010-06-29T18:54:00.000-07:00

28 June 2010

Kenya: Timely National Conference on Freedom of Expression and Regulations against Harmful Speech

On 17-18 June, over 25 experts and 150 stakeholders from key national reform agencies, the United Nations, and civil society organisations including ARTICLE 19 debated the values and limits of freedom of expression and regulations against harmful speech in Nairobi, Kenya. Kenya has witnessed repeated ethnic violence during general elections and national referenda from 1992 to the present.

The conference was organised by ARTICLE 19 Kenya & Eastern Africa together with the National Cohesion and Integration Commission. It came on the heels of recent prosecutions against political leaders charged with hate speech and incitement to violence in the conduct of their campaigns against the proposed Constitution of Kenya. The new draft constitution will be the object of a national referendum on 4 August 2010.

The Conference sought to move the acrimonious debates to a sounder international human rights basis, through a focus on Article 19 and Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The conference created a platform for technical readings and debates on freedom of expression and its permissible restrictions under the international human rights law. It also offered an opportunity to assess whether Kenyan hate speech regulations – particularly the National Cohesion and Integration Act, Section 13, Penal Code, Media Act, Kenya Communications Act and the Broadcasting Regulations – meet international standards.

The meeting was opened by Michael Hasenau, Deputy Head of Mission, German Embassy; Dr Mzalendo Kibunjia, Chairperson of the National Cohesion and Integration Commission in Kenya; and Dr Agnes Callamard, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19.

“The rights to freedom of expression, equality and freedom from discrimination are universal and mutually reinforcing. They transcend ethnic, racial and cultural specificities. It does mean that censorship is not only a violation to freedom of expression. It also violates the right to equality and to be free from discrimination. Hate speech and incitement to violence strives on censorship,” says Callamard.

Some of the key points highlighted by the experts included:

• A recognition that incitement and advocacy to hatred on the basis of sex, ethnicity, race, disability, age or religion must be prohibited (it is an obligation placed on states under international human rights law). However such restrictions must be provided in law, meet a legitimate aim, such as to protect the rights and reputations of others, and be necessary to a democratic society

• There is convergence between freedom of expression (as provided for by Article 19 of ICCPR) and the restrictions imposed by Article 20. Hate speech is “valueless speech and therefore not protected in international law”

• Restrictions of freedom of expression should be clearly and narrowly defined to ensure that they are not overbroad, and do not restrict legitimate speech or go beyond the scope of harmful speech

• Kenya has adopted a number of legislations prohibiting any advocacy of national racial, ethnic or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. However, there is still need for the state authorities to review and harmonise laws on hate speech to ensure they conform to acceptable international standards

• There was general agreement that there was no need for an additional legislation on hate speech in Kenya, but the need for testing the effectiveness of current legislation through litigation and norm-setting, including by the National Cohesion and Integration Commission

• There were debates as to the role played by the criminalisation of hate speech; for some it sets a society’s normative standards and may have an educational function. But we need to consider a range of sanctions against hate speech, not only those resulting in a restriction of freedom of expression. We need to take into account possible misuse of criminalisation, including against minorities, marginalised groups and those expressing political dissent

• A series of other mechanisms and options should be considered, such as those aiming at strengthening the participation of all minorities to the public and political life of Kenya; strengthening human rights education and knowledge, for example on religion; protecting minority and community media; ethical journalism and particularly reporting in a multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural society; intra-ethnic and intra-religious dialogue; meaningful and enforceable code of conduct for MPs and political leaders

• The 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the 2001 UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa should be promoted.

“Hate speech regulations are required under international law. But we must be aware that this is a blunt instrument, which must be implemented carefully and wisely. In too many places around the world, hate speech regulations are used to prohibit legitimate speeches and political dissent. We must allow for a range of policies and best practices to guide interventions in Kenya,” says Callamard.

“We admit that the National Cohesion and Integration Commission Act was quickly assembled and some aspects of it may have been left out as has been pointed by the various speakers during the conference, especially that fact that the borderline between freedom of speech and hate speech is very thin and care must be taken to balance the two issues,” Dr Mzalendo Kibunjia, the Chairman of the NCIC notes.

“I appreciate that such discussions are essential because, talking about the hate speech is an important step towards solving the issue of hate speech in this country. The debates during the conference therefore produce an introductory and broad framework to facilitate future interventions on the issue without necessarily infringing on other freedoms” he adds.

All participants to the conference emphasised the need for a continued dialogue and exchange on the issues of freedom of expression, equality and non-discrimination to build on the Conference key findings.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

• For more information please contact: Victor Bwire, Programme Officer, ARTICLE 19 Kenya/Eastern Africa, victor@article19.org, +254 20 3862230/2.

Bangladesh : Hundreds of police shut down pro-opposition newspaper

2010-06-10T10:29:00.001-07:00

9 June 2010

Hundreds of police shut down pro-opposition newspaper

An opposition newspaper was forced to close in Bangladesh last week after the government cancelled its license to publish and sent 200 police to raid its printing press in the middle of the night, report the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), ARTICLE 19, the International Press Institute (IPI) and other IFEX members. The acting editor of the paper was arrested on fraud charges.

The Bengali-language daily "Amar Desh", based in the capital, Dhaka, is known for being close to the opposition Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and is often critical of the government. In recent months, editor Mahmudur Rahman wrote editorials and articles documenting extra-judicial killings and maladministration by officials connected to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, says Index on Censorship.

In an interview with Index on Censorship in the hours before his arrest, Rahman said: "We are the third largest national daily and have the second largest Internet readership... I have in my journalism exposed the government's record on corruption and human rights abuses extensively, in recent days we have seen a high number of custodial deaths."

At the time of the raid, anti-government protesters and journalists tried to prevent police from entering the building. Staff members blocked the entrance, saying the editor would be arrested "over their dead bodies," reports IPI. The police broke through "a human barricade of newspaper staff," to seize Rahman. Newspapers for 2 June were confiscated.

Rahman was granted bail on charges of fraud, but was kept in custody on separate charges filed against him and colleagues at the newspaper for obstructing police. According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), several journalists were injured during the raid and five journalists were charged with violence.

Rahman was the energy advisor to former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia when her Bangladesh National Party (BNP) led a four-party alliance government from 2001 to 2006. He is the major shareholder of "Amar Desh" and has been acting editor since 2008. Newspaper staff have been charged with more than 20 counts of criminal defamation linked to articles about the ruling Awami League party, which came to power in December 2008.

The state is cracking down on press freedom to curb criticism of its policies, says RSF. "The Awami League government is clearly unable to tolerate criticism from this opposition newspaper and, in particular, its coverage of the controversial award of energy contracts to foreign companies."

In April, the Bangladeshi government banned the country's only private television station, the pro-opposition Channel One. On 1 June Facebook was blocked. RSF reports that it was restored on 5 June following the social-networking website's agreement to withdraw cartoons of Mohammed as well as cartoons of certain Bangladeshi politicians that were considered offensive. Mahbub Alam Rodin, a young man who had allegedly posted the satirical images, was arrested for insulting the country's leaders.

More Info : http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100602/wl_sthasia_afp/bangladeshpoliticsmedia_20100602113722

AFP/File – A Bangladeshi Army soldier reads a newspaper on top of an armoured vehicle in Dhaka in 2009. Bangladesh …

Wed Jun 2, 7:37 am ET

DHAKA (AFP) – Bangladesh shut down a pro-opposition newspaper and arrested its editor on fraud charges, police said Wednesday, after storming the paper's offices in a late-night raid.

Mahmudur Rahman, acting editor of the Bengali-language Amar Desh and one of the government's most vocal critics, was arrested after police broke through an improvised barricade set up by the paper's journalists.

"He has been arrested on charges of fraud and defamation," local police chief Mahbubur Rahman told AFP.

The arrest came hours after the authorities cancelled the paper's publication rights, allegedly because the publisher, Hashmat Ali, had filed a case with the police.

"The publisher has said he was no longer responsible for Amar Desh and it was being printed illegally. He has filed a fraud case with police," government official Muhibul Haque told AFP.

But local media reports quoted the publisher's family as saying Ali has been picked up by intelligence officials and detained.

Rahman, a stalwart of the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), claimed Ali, who also supported the BNP, had been forced to sign the fraud papers prepared by the government's intelligence services.

"Police stormed the office and beat several journalists before picking up Rahman on Wednesday morning," said Zahed Chowdhury, city editor of Amar Desh.

Rahman has been a vocal critic of the current Awami League government since it swept to power in December 2008 elections.

Israeli Defence Forces assault flotilla of activists and journalists, impose media blackout

2010-06-02T22:46:00.000-07:00

2 June 2010

Israeli Defence Forces assault flotilla of activists and journalists, impose media blackout

Israeli forces raided a flotilla of activists on its way to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip; 60 journalists were on board.

via EPA

At least nine people were killed and dozens wounded when an Israeli warship intercepted and raided a flotilla of activists attempting to deliver 10,000 tons of aid to Gaza on 31 May. Around 60 journalists were reportedly on board. More than 600 people from 42 countries, including journalists, activists and artists, have been arrested since the raid unfolded in international waters. Shortly after the assault, Israeli authorities launched an information blackout, blocking cellphones and barring journalists from covering the attack, report the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA), ARTICLE 19, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and other IFEX members.

The convoy of boats in the Freedom Flotilla, led by the Free Gaza Movement and Turkish organisation Insani Yardim Vakfi, set out from Turkey on Sunday afternoon reported "The New York Times". Israel ordered the convoy to abort its mission; the vessel refused to dock at an Israeli port. Then, naval commandos were dropped aboard the Turkish ship, intending to commandeer the vessel. Now the raid's brutal consequences have thrown a spotlight on Israel's policy of blockading Gaza, say news reports.

ARTICLE 19 is calling for an independent investigation into the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) use of lethal force: "It should focus on the legality of the Israeli assault in international waters and thus the legality of the blockade, and the proportionality of the use of force." In a submission to the United Nations 14th Human Rights Council, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) called upon the United Nations today to conduct an immediate investigation into the attack.

The same day, an Al Jazeera TV crew was attacked by Israeli citizens in the port of Ashdod after the defence minister gave a news conference about the attack, reports RSF. Many of the journalists on the flotilla have been out of contact since the raid. According to the International Press Institute (IPI), journalists on board reported the jamming of electronic devices as the raid occurred. Israeli forces arrested at least 20 journalists aboard the flotilla; three have since been released, reports the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). RSF says 16 journalists are still being held at Be'er Scheva detention centre, and that journalists are among the 300 people being deported through the airport today.

Israeli forces have also attempted to curb criticism by targeting journalists in other recent incidents. According to RSF, at least three Palestinian journalists were assaulted by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank last month, and more than 30 journalists have been attacked by the IDF this year. Soldiers fired tear gas at a cameraman covering protests against the Israeli separation wall in Beit Jala on 23 May, while another correspondent was targeted with tear gas for covering wall protests on 14 May. MADA reports that a Palestinian cameraman covering clashes between settlers and Palestinian youth on 29 May was beaten by security forces after stones were thrown at him by settlers.

Israeli authorities routinely target prominent rights defenders. A joint action spearheaded by CIHRS, with 23 other organisations, has condemned the arrest of rights defender Ameer Makhoul on 6 May. Makhoul has been active in exposing racist practices and abuses against Arab Israelis. A gag order was placed on his arrest until 27 May, reports I'lam: Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel, which was concerned about the "conditions of his detention, including allegations of torture."

Free Speech Campaigners in London Protest Against Continued Persecution of Jailed Editor

2010-06-02T22:22:00.000-07:00

For immediate release – 2 June 2010

Free Speech Campaigners in London Protest Against Continued Persecution of Jailed Editor

Freedom of expression campaigners will protest on Thursday 3 June outside the Azerbaijani embassy in London, calling for an end to the persecution of jailed journalist Eynulla Fatullayev.

Amnesty International UK, ARTICLE 19, English PEN and Index on Censorship will also hand in a letter to the embassy – signed by key literary figures including Monica Ali, Alan Ayckbourn, William Boyd, and Philip Pullman - calling for Fatullayev’s immediate release and for new politically-motivated charges against him to be dropped.

Newspaper editor Fatullayev, 33, is currently serving an eight-and-a-half year prison sentence based on trumped-up charges of terrorism and defamation. In April this year the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that he had been wrongfully imprisoned for exercising his right to freedom of expression and that he should be immediately released.

Despite being a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Azerbaijan authorities responded by questioning the court’s authority. Chingiz Esgerov, Azerbaijan’s representative to the ECtHR, argued that “the ECtHR has no authority to give orders to the courts of other countries” and “the country’s legislation does not envision the release of a prisoner only on a basis of the ECtHR.”

After the ECtHR began reviewing his case, Eynulla Fatullayev was further accused of possessing illegal drugs - a charge widely believed to have been fabricated in order to keep him in prison.

In March Eynulla’s father received a death threat for speaking out about his son. This is the third of such threats he has received.

Eynulla Fatullayev received an honourable mention before an audience of the UK’s leading journalists at last night’s Amnesty International Media Awards. In 2009 he was the recipient of the Amnesty International Special Award for Journalism Under Threat.

Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said:

“The continuing imprisonment and persecution of Eynulla Fatullayev brings shame on Azerbaijan. It’s amazing that the authorities are so scared of the words of one journalist that they would damage their international standing in this way, even questioning the authority of the European Court of Human Rights.”

ARTICLE 19 Executive Director Agnès Callamard said:

“It is extremely disconcerting that Emin Fatullayev has received death threats for speaking out on behalf of his son. The Azerbaijani Government has the duty to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. They should publicly condemn such threats, investigate them thoroughly, and provide adequate protection to Emin Fatullayev.”

Chair of the Writers in Prison Committee and Deputy President of English PEN Carole Seymour-Jones said:

“Eynulla Fatullayev is just a journalist doing his job. He should be released immediately and these politically-motivated charges against him should be dropped.”

John Kampfner, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right which journalists, human rights defenders and all of us should be able to exercise openly and without fear of reprisals. Azerbaijan must fulfil its international obligations to guarantee this right.”

The persecution of journalists such as Eynulla Fatullayev is commonplace in Azerbaijan. The authorities have curtailed freedom of expression and have shown persistent hostility towards independent and opposition media. Journalists continue to be harassed, threatened, attacked and imprisoned for conducting their professional activities. Defamation and false charges are increasingly used to silence critical voices.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• Demonstration details:
What: Protesters with placards demonstrating outside embassy and handing in letter to ambassador
When: 12 noon to 1pm, Thursday 3 June
Where: Opposite the Azerbaijan Embassy, 4 Kensington Court, London, W8 5D
• For more media information and interviews please contact:
§Rebecca Vincent, ARTICLE 19 Azerbaijan Advocacy Assistant, 0207 324 2509
www.article19.org
Steve Ballinger, Amnesty International UK media unit, 020 7033 1548, Out of hours: 07721 398984, www.amnesty.org.uk
Robert Sharp, English PEN Campaigns Manager, 0207 324 2538, Out of hours: 07790 420011
www.englishpen.org
Padraig Reidy, Index on Censorship News Editor, 020 7324 2526, Out of hours: 07947 242 476
www.indexoncensorship.org

ISRAEL: Israel needs to heed international calls for free flow of information‏

2010-06-01T18:41:00.000-07:00

ISRAEL: Israel needs to heed international calls for free flow of information

ARTICLE 19 is calling for an open, international, independent and impartial investigation into the use of lethal force by the Israeli Defence Forces which resulted in a number of deaths onboard the Gaza-bound flotilla on 31 May.

The blocking of all communication channels, including mobile phones, shortly after the assault, followed by the arbitrary detention of journalists, human rights monitors and others who were travelling onboard the flotilla, are evidence of censorship and a news blackout by Israeli state authorities. Such actions curtail the free flow of information, as protected by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil on Political Rights to which Israel is party.

The one-sided information originating from official Israeli sources on the circumstances surrounding the assault and the deaths restricts the right to information and minimises the possibilities for international public scrutiny of the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces and thus for accountability.

As early as 1946, at its very first session, in the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59(I) which states that “Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and ... the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.”

Freedom of expression, including access to information, is also essential to the realization of what is commonly referred to as the “right to truth.” The UN Commission on Human Rights, at its 61st session, adopted Resolution 2005/66, which ‘‘Recognizes the importance of respecting and ensuring the right to the truth so as to contribute to ending impunity and to promote and protect human rights.’’

The investigation into the assault against the flotilla must be open, international, impartial and independent. It should focus on the legality of the Israeli assault in international waters and thus the legality of the blockade, and the proportionality of the use of force. An international investigation team should be allowed access to government-held information on the matter, as well as direct access to those involved in the assault, witnesses and those subsequently detained.

NOTES :

• For more information: please contact Mona Samari, +44 (0) 7515 828 939, mona@article19.org

----------------------------------Background news:
more info.

The Siasat Daily2010-06-01
Gaza, June 01: Israeli commandos on Monday attacked a high-profile Gaza-bound aid flotilla, killing up to 19 people and triggering in its wake a wave of outrage across the globe. The convoy of six ships was assaulted in the early hours after commandos slithered down from helicopters and confronted passengers on board, mostly pro-Palestinian activists.

http://www.examiner.com/x-27745-SF-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m5d31-Israel-Defense-Forces-IDF-Hamas-statements-on-Gaza-flotilla-violence

Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Hamas, activists statements on Gaza flotilla violence

Israel has met with protests around the world and here in the San Francisco Bay Area following its raid on a flotilla of boats headed for the Gaza Strip. Click here for a slideshow of photos related to the incident

Israel says it was defending itself after those on one of the vessels attacked its soldiers. It displayed weapons confiscated by those on board and showed video of the soldiers being attacked.

The activists onboard say that they were attacked by the soldiers after they raised the white flag of surrender and that they were simply trying to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, which has been under a blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt since Hamas took over Gaza in 2007.

The public relations war is being fought by activists around the world through video and protests. Click here for two sets of videos with different points of view on what happened. The Israeli Consulate in San Francisco also posted YouTube videos from IDF on its Web site.

Below is the official statement from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), after that is the official statement from Hamas. Following that is a statement from the San Francisco Bay Area based Free Palestine Movement organization.

Tunisia:Harassment, Intimidation of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists

2010-05-18T08:06:00.000-07:00

17 May 2010

Tunisia: Detention of Prisoners of Opinion, Harassment, Intimidation of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists; Internet Censorship and Lack of Independence of the Judiciary

Statement delivered by ARTICLE 19 on 12 May to the 47th session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR).

ARTICLE 19 is gravely concerned by the continued arrests, detentions and intimidations of media practitioners, human rights defenders and legal practitioners in Tunisia.

Since 2005, prior to the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) held in Tunisia, ARTICLE 19 joined other members of the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) to form the 20-member Tunisia Monitoring Group (TMG).

The TMG seeks to highlight the following violations:
• Detention of Tunisian prisoners of opinion, the use of administrative sanctions to punish dissident views and the obstruction of the emergence of an independent judiciary
• Restrictions on freedom of association for peaceful purposes and the right of all civil society groups to be legally established and hold meetings in Tunisia
• Censorship of the internet, the arts, books and periodicals by legal, administrative and extrajudicial means in Tunisia.

The TMG just concluded its sixth mission to Tunisia from 25 April to 6 May 2010.

We found that despite the existence of a legislative and institutional framework guaranteeing human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the impressive economic growth, large scale human rights violations continue to take place with impunity in Tunisia.

ARTICLE 19 and other members of the TMG wish to highlight the plight of local journalists who are arrested, intimidated, harassed by plainclothes police, denied licenses to operate independent newspapers or broadcast outlets, and taken to court regularly over frivolous charges.

A notable case is that of Fourti Salah, who has been waiting for 23 years to get a reply to his application for a radio frequency. He ended up forming the Syndicate of Tunisian Free Radios with more than 20 other journalists who have no other recourse while individuals close to the government are speedily granted frequencies.

On 3 May, while the international community celebrated World Press Freedom Day, Tunisian journalists continued to face direct and indirect harassments and censorship.

Néji Bghouri, president of the legitimate National Syndicate of Tunisian Journalists (SNJT) was prevented by the police from holding a peaceful demonstration in front of the Ministry of Communications. He intended with some other colleagues to mark the day and call the attention of the government to the case of the journalist Fahem Boukadous of Al-Hiwar Al-Tunisi satellite television station, who has been sentenced to four years imprisonment for having reported on the demonstrations in the mining area of Gafsa. He returns to court on 18 May.

Other notable cases include Radio Kalima which was attacked, their material seized and their offices closed.

Zouheir Makhlouf, a contributor to news website Assabil Online and the opposition weekly Al-Mawkif spent over three months in jail for a video he produced on the pollution in the industrial zone of the Nabeul region. He was viciously beaten by police in April after being released in February.

In addition, human rights defenders and journalists are constantly harassed and intimidated at Tunis Carthage airport, unduly searched and sometimes stopped from travelling. Lotfi Hajji, correspondent of Al Jazeera was recently harassed at the airport of Tunis Carthage on his way back from Doha, as are other journalists and rights activists routinely.

Besides the violations of freedom of expression, the independence of the judiciary is hampered by arbitrariness.

The case of the judge Mokhtar Yahyaoui is an illustration of the lack of independence of the judiciary. Since 2001, Yahyaoui has been victimized for having requested a more independent working environment for the judiciary. Since then, he has been denied all basic rights such as the right to have a passport for himself and his children who are studying in Europe, his letters are read, and he is under constant surveillance. His colleagues, family and friends are intimidated and moved hundreds of kilometers away from Tunis for showing solidarity.

ARTICLE 19 and other TMG members urge the ACHPR, and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders to:
• Request the Tunisian government to stop the harassment, intimidation of journalists, human rights defenders and the use of administrative sanctions to silence dissenting views
• Stop the use of insidious tactics and instruments and sophisticated ploys to block the emergence of an independent judiciary
We further urge the ACHPR to:
• Conduct a fact finding mission to Tunisia in order to assess the critical situation of human rights defenders, legal and the media practitioners
• The mission should include civil society organizations and meet with all stakeholders in Tunisia.

This statement is endorsed by the Federation of African Journalists and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH).

FURTHER INFORMATION:

• For more information please contact: Amadou Kanoute, Amadou@article19.org +221 33 860 12 62

Journalists under threat from suicide bombs, abductions and censorship

2010-05-16T22:00:00.000-07:00

12 May 2010

Journalists under threat from suicide bombs, abductions and censorship

Pakistani journalists continue to be pushed to the edge, by suicide attacks, kidnappings and murder, as well as government officials making direct attacks on critical journalists, reports the Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF). Access to information has also been undermined with state orders to halt BBC Urdu-language broadcasts.

In a joint action spearheaded by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 26 IFEX members and the Pakistani Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) have called on the leaders of the Taliban, jihadist movements and Al-Qaeda to stop suicide bombings targeting public gatherings, which result in the deaths of innocent civilians and media workers.

Pakistani journalists cover events first-hand, but that does not mean they "support any specific politician or public figure," says the joint action. The bombings have made Pakistan one of the most dangerous countries in the world for the press.

Journalists and their families are also not entirely safe in their own homes. Azaz Syed was out at work when gunmen riddled the front door of his house with bullets early on 7 May, says PPF. An investigative reporter for the English-language private television channel Dawn News, Syed has been working on stories involving the armed forces, intelligence agencies and militant organisations, as well as political parties and influential personalities in Pakistan. This is the second attack on his residence.

Meanwhile, on 27 April, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) ordered 24 FM radio stations to stop broadcasting BBC Urdu news bulletins because they allegedly violated the terms of their licenses, reports PPF. BBC says it believes the stations have completed all the required paperwork for PEMRA to lift the ban.

In a separate deadly episode in North Waziristan, militants executed a former Pakistani intelligence official who was kidnapped along with documentary filmmaker Asad Qureshi, report the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the International Press Institute (IPI). The official's body was found on 30 April, after going missing with the filmmaker and a second official on 26 March. Qureshi, a British citizen of Pakistani origin, was on his way to interview Taliban leaders.

More recently, 30-year-old journalist Ghulam Rasool Birhamani was reported missing on 9 May; his body was found the next day with torture marks and fatal head injuries, reports PPF. A reporter for the daily "Sindhu Hyderabad", Birhamani had recently received threats from the Lashari tribe for reporting on the marriage of an underage girl from the tribe.

Photos of extrajudicial killings banned

2010-04-27T06:05:00.000-07:00

14 April 2010

Photos of extrajudicial killings banned

Art can be a powerful medium for ideas and information, to challenge repression. A photo exhibit about extrajudicial executions in Dhaka, Bangladesh, was banned on 22 March, report Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and ARTICLE 19. The ban was revoked a week later after the gallery owner, who received death threats, appealed the decision in court.

The exhibit, "Crossfire," by Shahidul Alam, features photographs and installations relating to alleged extrajudicial killings by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a military-dominated crime-fighting force. Officers often say these are "crossfire" killings in which they act in self defense or to stop alleged criminals from escaping.

Since RAB was established in 2004 it has killed more than 500 people. No one has been prosecuted for the killings. Many victims of the "cross-fire" killings have instead either been tortured to death or summarily shot. At least four journalists have been tortured by RAB members since 2007, says RSF.

Drik gallery owner and well-known photographer, Shahidul Alam, received death threats days after the exhibit was shut down. Police surrounded the gallery until they were ordered by the government to withdraw on 31 March.

ARTICLE 19 featured the Dhaka exhibit in the March edition of its "Artist Alert", which highlights cases of artists worldwide whose right to freedom of expression has been trampled. The bulletin also mentions the award-winning Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi who was detained along with his wife, daughter and 15 guests by Iranian security on 1 March. His wife, daughter and guests have been released, but Panahi continues to be held incommunicado in Tehran's Evin prison.

China: US companies refuse to bow to online surveillance

2010-04-02T07:03:00.000-07:00

31 March 2010

US companies refuse to bow to online surveillance

US Internet companies withdraw their business from Chinese censors; foreign journalists' email accounts hacked.

via IPI

Two US companies are defying Chinese censors. Internet company GoDaddy announced on 24 March that it will no longer sell websites with Chinese domain names because of the extreme controls demanded by Chinese authorities, says Reporters Without Borders (RSF). Two days earlier, Google confirmed that it would no longer censor the Chinese version of its search engine, report RSF, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Human Rights Watch. Google will be redirecting viewers to its uncensored Hong Kong site.

Google also plans to monitor and publicise any attempts at censorship of this site by Chinese authorities. The site has been subjected to intermittent censorship in recent days, but is back to normal. On 12 January, Google first announced that it was going to withdraw from China unless it could operate its search engine free of any kind of censorship or restrictions. The company came to this decision after discovering "highly sophisticated and targeted attacks" on Gmail users who are human rights activists, which were traced back to Chinese hackers.

Two years ago, only five percent of Chinese Internet users were aware that the Web they saw was censored, reports CPJ. But now there is much greater awareness and news reports about Google have acted as a "wake-up call for Chinese netizens." Now, millions of people in China who access Google will be able to see the search results their government does not want them to see.

"Google's decision to offer an uncensored search engine is an important step to challenge the Chinese government's use of censorship to maintain its control over its citizens," said Human Rights Watch.

Chinese authorities have requested that individuals and companies wanting to register a website must now provide them with copies of photo identification and business licences, and fill out and sign forms, explained GoDaddy. The company's existing clients were expected to comply with the rules; only 20 percent provided the documents. "We are concerned about the security of the individuals affected by the new requirements," said GoDaddy. "We are concerned about the chilling effects we believe the requirements could have on new domain name registrations." The Internet company also said it had been targeted by dozens of cyber-attacks this year and blamed Chinese authorities.

More than a dozen Chinese government agencies work to implement laws, regulations, policy guidelines and other legal tools to try to keep information and ideas from the Chinese people, reports Human Rights Watch. Many companies, including Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft, have supported this system by blocking terms they think the Chinese government would want them to censor.

Meanwhile, the Yahoo! email accounts of at least 10 foreign journalists based in China and Taiwan have been targeted by hackers in recent weeks, reports RSF.

http://www.ifex.org/china/2010/03/31/hackers_censors/

Honduras : Five journalists killed in one month

2010-04-02T06:57:00.000-07:00

31 March 2010

Five journalists killed in one month

March has been a deadly month for Honduran journalists, with five killed.

via IPI

In a highway ambush, two journalists were shot to death in eastern Honduras on 26 March, report the Comité por la Libre Expresión (C-Libre), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), ARTICLE 19 and other IFEX members. This brings the number of journalists murdered in Honduras this year to five; all killed this past month.

Radio journalists José Bayardo Mairena Ramírez, 52, and Manuel Juárez, 55, had just finished hosting a radio programme and were driving from the city of Catacamas to Juticalpa. Gunmen shot at them from another car, riddling their car with bullets.

Both journalists worked on the program "Así es Olancho" for R.Z. Television's Channel 4, and Radio Excélsior, where Bayardo Mairena was the manager. Bayardo Mairena opposed the 2009 coup d'état and was known for his sympathy to the "resistance" movement, reports ARTICLE 19.

The head of the Honduran Press Association urged President Porfirio Lobo Sosa to "rein in" these killings of journalists, says RSF.

Journalists, human rights defenders and opposition activists have been regularly targeted in the last eight months, says ARTICLE 19, but the situation has especially deteriorated since the swearing-in of President Lobo early this year. Effective legal remedies and protection policies at the national level are lacking.

There have also been threats against the staff of Radio Uno, a privately owned opposition station in San Pedro Sula, reports RSF. Despite being monitored by the army since last June's coup, the station continues to take risks by covering human rights violations.

http://www.ifex.org/honduras/2010/03/31/fifth_killed/

UN resolution on defamation of religions goes against free speech

2010-04-02T06:39:00.000-07:00

31 March 2010

UN resolution on defamation of religions goes against free speech, say IFEX members

Despite protests from 40 IFEX members, UN adopts resolution on defamation of religions.

via Index on Censorship

Forty IFEX members sent a joint statement, coordinated by ARTICLE 19, to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) this month to protest resolutions on defamation of religion, arguing that any decision to combat defamation of religions contradicts the right to freedom of expression. The joint action also urged the UNHRC to reject any resolutions to add "complementary standards" to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Instead, IFEX members say that established international human rights guarantees on freedom of expression must be upheld to deal with global challenges of violence, discrimination and hatred on racial and religious grounds.

A separate joint letter coordinated by ARTICLE 19 and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), signed by 47 civil society organisations, including four IFEX members, was also sent to member states of the UNHRC in advance of the meeting on the resolution. It argued that international human rights standards should protect individuals and groups from discrimination and harassment on the basis of their religion or ethnicity. And belief systems should not be shielded from debate or criticism.

Any draft resolution on defamation of religions would be counterproductive to its goals of promoting equality and non-discrimination of individuals on the basis of their religion by supporting state practices which discriminate against religious minorities, dissenting voices and non-believers, says the joint action signed by 40 IFEX members. Efforts to codify defamation of religions will have negative long-term effects on freedom of expression.

In addition, amendments to the ICERD are unnecessary, say the 47 civil society organisations. "What is needed today is appropriate implementation of existing standards and political will to fight discrimination and hatred against individuals or groups, based on their religion." ICERD changes would lead to a binding international agreement on "defamation of religions."

Nonetheless the UN did adopt a resolution on 25 March, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), on "combating defamation of religions," with 20 states voting in favour. This resolution also goes against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which "only prohibits advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to violence, discrimination and hatred," says the joint letter by the 40 IFEX members.

In related work, on 11 March, ARTICLE 19, Amnesty International, CIHRS and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights submitted a brief to the Indonesian constitutional court, stating that the country's laws, which permit punishing the "abuse or defamation of religions," are contrary to international human rights law. The Indonesian criminal code delivers a five-year prison sentence to anyone who publicly expresses views or engages in actions which are considered "abuse or defamation" of select religions in the country.

And on 10 March, Freedom House held a panel discussion in Geneva with human rights defenders from Indonesia, Nigeria and the United States to discuss options for combating religious discrimination without restricting free speech. Resolutions calling on governments to ban speech considered offensive to some religious believers have been passed each year since 1999, reports Freedom House. The resolutions have not decreased acts of religious discrimination and intolerance, while moderate voices have been ignored in the debate. As well, legal measures to protect religious beliefs from criticism are counterproductive to the goal of promoting religious tolerance.

http://www.ifex.org/international/2010/03/31/defamation_religions/

UN Human Rights Council: ARTICLE 19 Welcomes Decrease in Support for “Defamation of Religions”

2010-04-01T09:22:00.000-07:00

29 March 2010

UN Human Rights Council: ARTICLE 19 Welcomes Decrease in Support for “Defamation of Religions”

Votes at the UN Human Rights Council over the last two days have shown a decrease in support for the concept of “defamation of religions”. ARTICLE 19 joins its voice to those of many civil society organisations around the world who have welcomed this positive move. This latest result further consolidates those observed in 2009 at the Durban Review Conference and the September session of the HRC.

In the vote on the resolution on combating “defamation of religions”, 20 states voted in favour, 17 states voted against and eight states abstained. Three states withdrew their support and six voted against the defamation resolution, including Argentina and Zambia who voted “no” for the first time.

In the run-up to the vote, many governments and non-governmental organisations campaigned against the resolution on the basis that it violates international human rights law on freedom of expression and other rights. While the resolution’s adoption is disappointing, the close vote indicates a significant decrease in the political support for such resolutions over previous years and raises the hope that in the future, a more constructive approach will emerge.

The Human Rights Council also adopted, without a vote, a technical and procedural resolution on the elaboration of complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The resolution underlines “the imperative need for the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards to the ICERD to elaborate complementary standards to the ICERD in accordance with paragraph 199 of the Durban Programme of Action”. The resolution decides, “to remain seized of this priority issue” and also takes note of the report of the chairperson of the Committee and sets the dates for the Committee’s next session (29 November to 10 December 2010).

The wording of this resolution is a significant improvement on an earlier proposal which requested the committee to elaborate upon additional protocols to the ICERD. Such proposals were intended to lead to the development of a new binding international agreement on “defamation of religions”. In the opinion of many states and non-governmental organisations, long established international human rights guarantees on freedom of expression and equality are adequate to deal with global challenges of violence, discrimination and hatred on racial and religious grounds. The extension of existing norms would do little to prevent these problems, while having a substantial impact on the freedom of expression and religion.

NOTES

• The following states voted for the resolution on defamation of religions: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and South Africa (20).
• The following states voted against the resolution: Argentina, Belgium, Chile, France, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Zambia (17).
• The following states abstained in the vote: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cameroon, Ghana, India, Japan, Madagascar and Mauritius (8). Angola and Gabon were absent at the vote.
• Letter of the 47 organisations: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/letters/letter-from-civil-society-organizations-to-state-representatives-defamation-.pdf
• IFEX Joint Action statement: http://www.ifex.org/international/2010/03/25/hrc_defamation_ja/
• For more information please contact: Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer sejal@article19.org +44 20 7324 2500

Honduras: Another Two Journalists Killed as Crackdown on Free Expression Intensifies

2010-04-01T09:19:00.000-07:00

29 March 2010

Honduras: Another Two Journalists Killed as Crackdown on Free Expression Intensifies

ARTICLE 19 expresses its deep concern at the recent killings of two more journalists – José Bayardo Mairena Ramírez and Manuel Juárez – on 27 March in the northern territory of Honduras. This brings the total number of journalists killed in similar circumstances in Honduras to five.
The killings highlight a severe deterioration in the respect and protection for human rights, including freedom of expression, in Honduras since the Presidential coup of June 2009. Journalists, human rights defenders, and opposition activists have been widely targeted throughout the last eight months but the situation appears to have deteriorated further since the beginning of the year and the swearing-in of Porfirio Lobo Sosa as President.

Both journalists worked for two local radio stations in northern Honduras. Bayardo Mairena was a radio talk host, with more than twenty years’ experience, while Juárez had worked as his assistant for many years. Opposed to the 2009 coup, Bayardo Mairena was known for his sympathy to the “resistance” movement. He had played a significant role in breaking the information monopoly of the pro-coup media last year. Bayardo Mairena´s programmes included a news show “This is Olancho” on Channel 4 RZ, Excelsior Television, where he was also the manager. He was based in Olancho, hometown of ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

According to official reports, the car in which both men were travelling was attacked on the road between Juticalpa and Catacamas, about 200 kilometres east of the capital, Tegucigalpa. Local radio stations reported that Bayardo Mairena’s car was shot 21 times.

There have been a number of other events in recent weeks. On 1 March, Joseph Hernandez Ochoa, a journalist based in Tegucijalpa, was shot dead and journalist Karol Cabrera was injured in the same incident. On 11 March, David Meza Montesinos was killed in La Ceiba by a gun shot. On 14 March, in Tocoa Columbus, Nahúm Palacios Arriaga, a journalist and director of Aguan TV Channel 5 was also killed. He had been granted “precautionary measures” by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in August 2009, along with dozens of other Honduran citizens. This is a mechanism to identify individuals at risk in an attempt to prevent them from being further targeted or harmed.

These cases are part of a long list of abuses that have taken place throughout Honduras over the last nine months.

“The similarity in the methods used in these attacks points towards a systemic pattern of repression and is clearly aimed at terrorising those who may be critical of the Government or other powerful players,” comments Dr Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director.

“We are working under intense pressure our reporters face constant harassment,” explains Johnny Lagos, editor of the opposition newspaper El Libertador. “The opposition press and Hondurans in general are victims of repression and misinformation,” he adds.

In February 2010, President Lobo endorsed the Chapultepec Declaration on Freedom of Expression. However the persistence of the adverse environment for freedom of expression faced by journalists, as well as the constant harassment against human rights activists and social leaders, demonstrates the absence of effective protection policies implemented by the new government.

Effective legal remedies at national level are lacking and there are numerous obstacles to the implementation of protection measures requested by the Inter American Commission of Human Rights. This helps to create a hostile environment for human rights protection, in general, and freedom of the press, in particular.

An amnesty law, like the one proposed by President Lobo, would almost certainly guarantee impunity for perpetrators of abuse and would undermine any attempts at reconciliation in the country.

“For a genuine and enduring process of reconciliation to take place, the investigation and punishment of all human rights violations during the Coup and it its aftermath are essential for establishing a real democratic regime,” comments Callamard.

ARTICLE 19 expresses condolences to the families of all the journalists who have died or been injured needlessly and offers our solidarity to the journalist community.

ARTICLE 19 calls on the Honduran State to adequately investigate these cases and to bring the perpetrators to justice. These investigations must take into account the concern that these journalists were killed because of their profession and exercise of their right to freedom of expression.

ARTICLE 19 urges the Honduran Government to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and to ensure all the necessary security measures to media workers trying to exercise this right, in accordance with its international human rights obligations.

Furthermore, we call on President Lobo to put the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations at the heart of an inclusive dialogue for national reconciliation, and to adopt all necessary measures to guarantee justice for all victims.

Finally, ARTICLE 19 calls upon the international community to urgently address the situation according to international law. The investigation and punishment of all human rights violations should be a central element for the reincorporation of the Honduran State into the OAS mechanisms.

NOTES
• For more information, please contact Ricardo González, ricardo@article19.org , +52 55 1054 6500

Indonesia: Human Rights NGOs Argue "Defamation of Religions" Law Contravenes Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion and Equality In Legal Brief to

2010-03-25T22:37:00.000-07:00

Indonesia: Human Rights NGOs Argue “Defamation of Religions” Law Contravenes Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion and Equality In Legal Brief to Constitutional Court

Indonesia’s laws prohibiting and punishing the “abuse or defamation of religions” are contrary to international human rights law, according to the amicus curiae brief submitted by ARTICLE 19, Amnesty International, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights to the Indonesian Constitutional Court on 11 March 2010.

The organisations submitted the brief to the Indonesian Constitutional Court in the judicial review of Law Number 1/PNPS/1965 concerning the prevention of religious abuse and/or defamation. The 1965 law prohibits “interpretation and activities are in deviation of the basic teachings” of “a religion adhered to in Indonesia”, which includes some faiths with followers in the country but not others. The Indonesian Criminal Code imposes a five year prison sentence on anyone who publicly expresses views or engages in actions which are considered “abuse or defamation” of these religions.

In the opinion of the organisations, the laws violate Indonesia’s international human rights obligations to respect and protect freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to equality. The organisations emphasise that the laws are fundamentally incompatible with the authoritative interpretation of international human rights law by international and regional human rights bodies and mechanisms, including the UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of opinion and expression and on freedom of religion or belief. The organisations further argue that the laws go against regional human rights standards and practices.

The organisations have submitted the brief in the hope that the Constitutional Court will rescind Indonesia’s defamation laws as a first step towards ensuring full adherence to Indonesia’s international legal obligations, including respect for and protection of the human rights to freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, and ending discriminatory policies and practices against certain minority faiths.

NOTES :

• For the brief of 11 March 2010 see: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/judicial-review-of-law-number-1-pnps-1965-concerning-the-prevention-of-relig.pdf
• For the letter of 47 organisations of 11 March 2010 see: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/letters/letter-from-civil-society-organizations-to-state-representatives-defamation-.pdf
• For more information please contact: Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer, sejal@article19.org or David Banisar, Senior Legal Counsel, banisar@article19.org +44 20 7324 2500; Yuval Ginbar, Legal Adviser, Amnesty International, +44 20 74135739 yginbar@amnesty.org; Jeremie Smith, Director of Geneva Officer, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies js.cihrs@gmail.com; Hossam Bahgat, Executive Director, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights hossam@eipr.org

UN Human Rights Council: ARTICLE 19 Calls On HRC Members to Vote Against Proposed Resolution On “Combating Defamation of Religions”

ARTICLE 19 is deeply concerned by a draft resolution on “combating defamation of religions” which has been circulated by the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) at the current, 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council. ARTICLE 19 urges member states of the Human Rights Council to vote against the draft resolution or at least abstain in a vote on its adoption.

I Introduction

1. A draft resolution on “combating defamation of religions” (the “draft resolution”) has been tabled by Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic States, for consideration by the UN Human Rights Council (“the HRC”), which is currently being held in Geneva. The forty-seven member states of the Council are due to consider the draft resolution before the end of this session on 26 March 2010. The subject of the draft resolution is not new within UN human rights bodies. Since 1999, a series of resolutions on combating defamation of religions have been adopted by the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission, and the UN General Assembly. Indeed, the draft resolution expressly draws influence from earlier resolutions and also makes some changes to the resolution which was adopted by the HRC at its tenth session.

2. These changes are, however, minor in their nature and do not, in any way, diminish the criticisms which ARTICLE 19 and other groups have made against UN resolutions on “combating defamation of religions”. The purpose of this statement is to note the new features that distinguish this draft resolution from previously adopted resolutions of the HRC on the subject and to summarise ARTICLE 19’s ongoing concerns with the adoption of any UN resolution on “combating defamation of religions”.

II New features of the draft resolution

3. A number of new features distinguish the draft resolution from previously adopted resolutions on “combating defamation of religions” of the HRC. It is assumed these changes are supposed to assist in legitimising the concept of “defamation of religions” and to persuade states to adopt the draft resolution. These changes do not improve the draft resolution from an international human rights perspective or make it compatible with international human rights law. For that to happen, at the bare minimum, the very concept of “defamation of religions” itself would need to be eliminated altogether. The new features do demonstrate the clear will of the drafters to situate the draft resolution more directly within the framework of established international human rights law and UN human rights initiatives, and, in so doing, to legitimise and entrench the concept of “defamation of religions”.

4. First, the draft resolution recalls the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban in 2001, as well as the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva in April 2009 (paragraph 6 of the preamble). Yet the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference omitted any reference at all to the notion of “defamation of religions”.

5. Second, the draft resolution indicates that the HRC “takes note of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world (A/HRC/13/57) and the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/12/38) presented to the Council at its twelfth session” (paragraph 1).

6. The reliance on both reports for this draft resolution is misleading. Neither of these reports suggests that the notion of “defamation of religions” forms an accepted part of the discourse of international human rights bodies. Indeed, the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights refrains from making any conclusions which refer to “defamation of religions” and instead makes specific reference to a joint statement by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression which states that “difficulties in providing an objective definition of the term ‘defamation of religions’ at the international level make the whole concept open to abuse”. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in his above-mentioned report reiterates the recommendation of his predecessor to “encourage a shift away from the sociological concept of the defamation of religions towards the legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”.

7. Fourth, the draft resolution “trongly condemns … the ban on construction of minarets of mosques … that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations concerning freedom of religion, belief, conscience and expression” (paragraph 8). State bans on the construction of minarets and mosques may violate the rights of observant Muslims to manifest their religion in public and are contrary to the international (and regional) human rights obligations of states. However, the prohibition and punishment of forms of expression and activities which fall within the notion of “defamation of religions”, such as criticism of religious doctrine, will not assist in responding to such bans on the construction of minarets and mosques which ought to be challenged in courts on the basis of existing human rights protections.

8. Fifth, the draft resolution “ecognizes that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence” (paragraph 17). We are concerned about the use of the word “respectful” in this paragraph: its meaning highly subjective and open to interpretation by state authorities who may seek to inappropriately confine the nature of debates concerning the combating of religious hatred, incitement and violence. ARTICLE 19 suggests that this paragraph should reflect the UN HRC Resolution on freedom of opinion and expression adopted on 12 October 2009 which avoids such language.

9. Sixth, the draft resolution “akes note with appreciation of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence” (paragraph 19). It then “welcomes the OHCHR plans to hold a series of expert workshops to examine legislation, judicial practices and national policies in different regions, in order to assess different approaches to prohibiting incitement to hatred, as stipulated in article 20 of the ICCPR, without prejudice to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” (paragraph 20). Both provisions refer to the High Commissioner’s Strategic Management Plan 2010-2011. However, this plan does not anywhere refer to “defamation of religions” and it is clear that the OHCHR’s work shall be based on existing provisions of international law, Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR.

10. Seventh, the draft resolution requests the High Commissioner to “continue to build on such initiatives, with a view to contributing concretely to the prevention and elimination of all forms of incitement and its consequences of negative stereotyping of religions and beliefs and their adherents that affects the enjoyment of human rights of concerned individuals and communities” (paragraph 20). International human rights law protects individuals and groups, but not religions or beliefs. The draft resolution’s reference to “negative stereotyping of religions and beliefs” is therefore unacceptable from an international human rights law perspective.

11. Eighth, “equests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all manifestations of “defamation of religions”, and in particular on the ongoing serious implications of Islamaphobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council at its fifteenth session” (paragraph 21). The Special Rapporteur should be requested to report on best practices to address advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

III Continuing challenges of “defamation of religions”

12. ARTICLE 19 recalls arguments it has already made against the concept of “combating defamation of religions” in previous statements.

13. The concept of “defamation of religions” is contrary to international human rights law on the right to freedom of expression, in particular. Neither provisions of international human rights treaties (including Articles 19 and 20 ICCPR) nor the UN human rights treaty-based bodies tasked with their interpretation have acknowledged or elaborated upon the meaning of “defamation of religions”. Religions and religious beliefs, ideas, ideologies and institutions do not attract protection under the provisions of international human rights law, as recognised by the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief and on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Finally, the term “defamation”, however understood, encompasses expression which falls short of constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence which should be prohibited under Article 20 of the ICCPR. The draft resolution uses a variety of other terms which also fall short of that standard, such as “negative” or “deliberate” stereotyping and the “ of Islam with human rights violations and terrorism”.

14. The protection of religions, religious ideas, symbols and personalities through the application of the concept of “defamation of religions” is counterproductive to the objective of promoting equality. Intercultural understanding can only be properly addressed through open debate and dialogue involving state actors, politicians and public figures, the media and civil society organisations.

15. Furthermore, the concept of “defamation of religions” has been abusively relied upon to stifle religious dissent and criticism of religious adherents and non-believers in a number of countries around the world.

IV Conclusion

16. ARTICLE 19 supports initiatives to combat discrimination, hostility and violence perpetrated on religious grounds. However, the draft resolution is contrary to international human rights law on the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and will not be effective in promoting equality in practice. The draft resolution also misleadingly relies upon established international human rights law, in particular Articles 19 and 20, as well as the recent initiatives of the OHCHR and the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference. If adopted, this draft resolution will add to the series of previously adopted resolutions on combating “defamation of religions” adopted by UN human rights bodies – an alarming trend which should be halted immediately. We therefore urge member states of the Human Rights Council to vote against the draft resolution or at least abstain in a vote on its adoption.

Burma: Undercover reporters face multiple risks to bring stories to the world

2010-03-25T22:04:00.000-07:00

Undercover reporters face multiple risks to bring stories to the wORLD

Correspondents living in Burma detail the dangers of undercover reporting and the layers of censorship to which approved news gathering is subjected in first-hand reports published by Mizzima News.

All publications and periodicals in Burma have to be registered with the Press Scrutiny and Registration Board under the Ministry of Information and are screened by its censorship regulations. If an article is to be published about a particular government department, it must be approved by the censorship board, and sometimes someone from the particular department will act as a second censor.

But independent journalists would only be ensuring their own imprisonment if they sent their stories to the censorship authorities. And journalists who work for exile media outlets cannot even reveal that they are journalists to interview subjects. If the person being interviewed has links to the military, he or she could have the journalist sent to jail.

Inside Burma, journalists must consider the risk to their lives as they attempt to practice their profession. Is it worth facing grave danger in order to cover a particular story? Is the story of national importance? Journalists consider the fine balance between being too daring in their coverage and knowing that if they don't take any risks, many important stories will remain in the shadows. They must "keep a low profile and work secretly" at all times.

The undercover reporter must also take photographs secretly. If a reporter is caught taking photographs of something significant, like a fire, he or she must prove that they work for an approved news group or they will be sent to jail. And there is even greater danger in attempting to photograph demonstrations, forced labour or the military.

Once the news is surreptitiously gathered, the journalist faces several more levels of risk in getting the information out of the country.

However, the resilience of Burmese journalists ensures that information is shared with the world. "Even under the regime's tight censorship and harsh control, news of major events like demonstrations against rising prices, strikes, the saffron revolution and cyclone Nargis are quickly spread to the outside world. It is the journalists that regularly expose the regime's brutal and inhumane nature," one correspondent told Mizzima.

International: International Women's Day honours the struggles of women journalists and rights defenders

2010-03-25T22:01:00.000-07:00

10 March 2010

International Women's Day honours the struggles of women journalists and rights defenders

Last year, Nepali journalist Tika Bista was slashed with razor blades for writing an article about the Maoists' bloody politics. International Women's Day honours fearless women journalists worldwide.

via CPJ

members highlighted International Women's Day on 8 March by honouring women journalists, writers and activists for their courage and tenacity in combating corrupt regimes, abuses of power and human rights violations. Many have faced arrest, beatings, imprisonment, and some have been murdered, for speaking out.

The Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN (WiPC) marked the day by honouring 14 women who are part of a recent campaign, "Because Writers Speak Their Minds – 50 Years of Defending Freedom of Expression," showcasing 50 writers worldwide. They include Nawal El-Saadawi, known for her feminist writings and criticism of the Egyptian government; she has been imprisoned, received death threats, and her books have been banned. WiPC commemorated Alaíde de Foppa de Solórzano, a leading Guatamalan writer and activist who ran a weekly feminist radio programme in the late 1970s and was among the thousands of disappeared. Martha Kumsa, an Ethiopian journalist and rights activist, is now in Canada after spending nine years in prison. In Russia, nine women journalists have been killed since 1992, including Anna Politkovskaya and Natalia Estemirova. Among 900 writers and journalists who suffered attacks recorded by the WiPC during 2009, 52 are women.

In a statement on 8 March, ARTICLE 19 emphasised the "importance of gender equality as a key component of the right to freedom of expression," commemorating women who have fought for freedom of expression. In Nepal, Uma Singh was the first female journalist to be murdered, stabbed to death by about 15 men in January 2009. And in Brazil, Thais Corral, an expert in social communications and veteran activist for economic and social justice, created a women's radio network linking 400 women's radio programmes and their communities throughout Brazil. The network aims to empower women community leaders to develop their own radio programmes.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) produced a profile with portraits of six women, six stories emblematic of the fight for press freedom. The profiles include Bulgarian journalist Anna Zarkova, Burmese video reporter Hla Hla Win, Mexican crime reporter María Esther Aguilar Cansimbe, journalist Tawakol Karman – head of the Yemeni NGO Women Journalists Without Chains, Tunisian rights activist and academic Zakia Dhifaoui and radio journalist Isha Jallow from Sierra Leone. The work of Uzbek photographer Oumida Akhmedova, who has faced harassment because the authorities do not approve of the image of the country presented in her photos, is featured on the publication's cover.

IFEX members belonging to the Tunisia Monitoring Group and the IFEX Gender Working Group sent a letter to the United Nations bringing attention to slander and abuse faced by women journalists and activists in Tunisia, which the groups say "has a long history of promoting women's rights." Smear campaigns against journalists and activists target prominent critical journalists and activists. Women are portrayed in government-backed newspapers and websites as "sexual perverts," "prostitutes," and "traitors on the payroll of foreign governments or groups."

Vocal women are constantly persecuted to stop them from doing their work. Journalists Sihem Bensedrine and Naziha Réjiba (also known as Um Ziad) of IFEX member the Observatoire de la Liberté de la Presse, de L'Edition et de la Création (OLPEC) are under strict surveillance; their homes and phone lines are monitored. Journalist Faten Hamdi of Radio Kalima was hit in the face by police officers in February 2010. Blogger Fatma Riahi was arrested in November 2009, her blog censored. Family members of jailed prisoners of opinion have also been targeted by the police, including Samia Abbou, whose husband is former prisoner Mohamed Abbou, and Azza Zarrad, wife of jailed journalist Taoufik Ben Brik, who is critically ill. Many other women journalists, human rights defenders, academics and lawyers have been subjected to travel restrictions, police monitoring, assault and smear campaigns.

Freedom House also launched a new report, "Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Progress Amidst Resistance." In Iran, restrictions on free speech have led to the closure of leading women's rights publications, and women activists and journalists are routinely imprisoned, says the report. Throughout the region, women are subjected to restrictions on freedom of association and press freedom.

In Bahrain, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) brought together women journalists from 15 journalists unions from across the Arab region and the Middle East from 6-8 March. Discussions were held on gender equality and leadership in the media. IFJ reports that only 27 percent of the workforce in media outlets is women, with women making up just 21percent of the union membership. IFJ also launched its regional study, "Gender Fact Sheets on Women Journalists in the Middle East and the Arab World."

And on the global airwaves, the Women's International Network of the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC-WIN) celebrated on 8 March by launching a webcast that runs until 31 March, dedicated to women and gender issues. The theme is "Empowering and Celebrating Women as Agents of Recovery" with multilingual documentaries, interviews, debates, poetry and music produced by community broadcasters from Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Africa, Europe, North America and Latin America, and the Caribbean.

Nigeria: Journalist almost killed by mourners; other journalists threatened by soldiers

2010-03-25T22:00:00.000-07:00

17 March 2010

Journalist almost killed by mourners; other journalists threatened by soldiers

Nigerian journalist attacked at funeral for victims of massacre.

Nigerian radio journalist covering the mass funeral of victims of a 7 March massacre in villages in central Nigeria was brutally assaulted by mourners, report the Nigeria-based Media Rights Agenda (MRA) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Journalists have also been harassed and intimidated by soldiers in the region, reports the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).

The murder of hundreds of Christians appears to be in reprisal for attacks on Muslim communities that occurred in January, says Human Rights Watch. Groups of men armed with guns, machetes and knives murdered residents in villages south of Jos, the capital of Plateau State. The conflict between Yoruba and Igbo Christians and Hausa-Fulani Muslims is focused on land, resources and political posts, say local journalists.

On 8 March, after a public official at the funeral told mourners that radio journalist Murtala Sani was Hausa-Fulani, a crowd attacked him. A "Wall Street Journal" reporter who covered the funeral said: "He was inches from losing his life. They wanted to kill him and throw his body in the mass grave with the others." Police fired into the air to disperse the crowd and then took Sani to a hospital. Another journalist, Aminu Abdulla, a reporter with Agence France-Presse (AFP), was accosted; but he escaped with the help of other journalists.

In other attacks on the press in the area, three broadcast reporters were threatened with death by soldiers in Jos, Plateau State, in January, says IFJ. The soldiers promised to "waste" them if they were seen on the road again.

Two sports journalists, South African sound engineer Nic Greyling and Nigerian commentator Bowie Attamah, were abducted at gunpoint on 1 March in Imo State, but later released, reports the World Association of News and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA).

More than 13,500 people have died in religious or ethnic clashes since the end of military rule in 1999, reports Human Rights Watch. There have been a series of deadly incidents in and around the Plateau State.

Honduras: Two more journalists slain

2010-03-25T21:58:00.000-07:00

Three Honduran journalists have been killed in deadly attacks this month. A radio journalist was shot and killed driving home on 11 March, report the Committee for Free Expression (C-Libre), the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). And on 16 March the news editor of a television station was riddled with bullets while driving, reports C-Libre, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and other IFEX members. The recent assassinations come after a journalist was murdered on 1 March.

Journalist Nahúm Palacios Artiaga, 34, was shot more than 20 times after two cars pulled alongside his vehicle in the city of Tocoa. Palacios Artiaga worked for Canal 5 television station and had reported on drug trafficking, violence, local politics, and an agrarian conflict between landowners and peasants. He received threats last week, warning him to "stop defending the poor." During the coup d'état last year, military police raided Palacios Artiaga's home, assaulted him and confiscated his equipment because of his critical coverage of the coup.

Gunmen killed journalist David Meza Montesinos, a reporter for local radio station El Patio and national broadcaster Radio América, as he was driving in the coastal city of La Ceiba. Meza Montesinos covered drug trafficking and organised crime and had recently received threats from unknown callers about his reporting. Aged 51, he had worked for El Patio for the past 30 years.

On March 1, reporter Joseph Hernández Ochoa was killed in similar circumstances in the capital, Tegucigalpa.

On 15 March, journalists held a protest in San Pedro Sula, demanding that authorities investigate the murders, says C-Libre.

Mexico: Eight journalists abducted, two killed

2010-03-25T21:54:00.000-07:00

17 March 2010

Eight journalists abducted, two killed

Abductions and murders of journalists have created a chill on the media.

via

Mexico, information can be fatal. Eight journalists were abducted in separate episodes between 18 February and 3 March, report the Center for Journalism and Public Ethics (CEPET), Inter American Press Association (IAPA), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Three journalists were later released; one of them died as a result of being tortured. Mexican journalists in newsrooms remain silent about the kidnappings for fear of reprisals from drug traffickers. And in another part of the country also caught in the terror of drug cartels, another journalist was slain on 12 March.

The abducted journalists work for both print and broadcast media and were kidnapped in Reynosa, northern Tamaulipas State. Sources declined to name the victims or file complaints with authorities due to fear of retaliation or further endangering the victims' lives. The abductions come at a time of bloody clashes between two drug cartels in the Reynosa border area, and the press has been intimidated into not reporting on the violence. Local journalists say the cartels are behind the kidnappings and corrupt police are protecting them. "An escalating internal dispute among drug cartel members has claimed over 200 lives in 14 days and contributed to a media blackout," reports the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA).

Reporter Jorge Rábago Valdez, 49, who worked for the Reynosa-based daily "La Prensa" and broadcasters Radio Rey and Reporteros en la Red, was abducted on 19 February. He was dumped on a highway less than two weeks later, and was found alive, but unconscious with signs of torture. He died in a hospital on 2 March. Miguel Angel Domínguez Zamora, a reporter for the Reynosa-based "El Mañana", has been missing since 1 March.

Two reporters from the Milenio media group were assigned to cover drug-related violence in Reynosa. They were abducted on 3 March and freed the next day. A top editor at Milenio, Ciro Gómez Leyva, wrote an op-ed saying they had been injured and their abductors had warned them to avoid any reporting on them. "Journalism in Reynosa is dead. I have nothing more to say," he said.

"As drug trafficking, violence, and lawlessness take hold," said CPJ, "the Mexican media are forced into silence. This pervasive self-censorship is causing severe damage to Mexican democracy."

In a separate incident, Mexican reporter Evaristo Pacheco Solís was found shot to death last week in Chilpancingo, Guerrero State - another area convulsed with open warfare between drug gangs, report RSF, CPJ and the International Press Institute (IPI). A reporter with the weekly "Visión Informativa", Pacheco Solís is the second journalist killed in Guerrero this year. According to press reports, at least 15 people died in a series of violent attacks in Guerrero last week.

"As journalist after journalist is slain there, the Mexican population - who stand at the forefront of the government's violent conflict with drug cartels - are being deprived of their right to information, and courageous Mexican journalists are being brutally deprived of their right to inform," said IPI.

Dow Chemicals Needs to Clean Up Its Act in Bhopal

2010-03-25T21:53:00.000-07:00

SVAW - UN Agency (en)

Dow Chemicals Needs to Clean Up Its Act in Bhopal

The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) is trying to clean up its image while it should really be cleaning up its act in Bhopal.

Dow is sponsoring Dow Live Earth Run for Water – a 6 km run on April 18, in different cities around the world, to start a movement to address the water crisis. But this flies in the face of what happened in Bhopal where tens of thousands of people are still suffering the consequences of the catastrophic 1984 gas leak. Union Carbide, whose subsidiary owned the pesticide plant at the time of the explosion, walked away from Bhopal, without decontaminating the site properly. Union Carbide is today wholly owned by Dow.

Shortly before midnight, on 2 December 1984, thousands of tonnes of deadly chemicals leaked from Union Carbide’s pesticide plant in Bhopal. Nearly half a million people were exposed. Between 7,000 and 10,000 people died in the immediate aftermath and a further 15,000 people over the next 20 years.

Dow should contribute to the clean-up

After 25 years, the Indian government is finally carrying out a full scientific assessment of the depth and spread of the contamination, as required by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Once the assessment is complete, Dow should make a substantial contribution towards the clean up operation, as previously requested by the Indian government.

No company can be allowed to evade responsibility for the adverse impacts of its operations. Dow must cooperate with the Indian government to address the outstanding liability of Union Carbide and ensure the site and surrounding areas are fully decontaminated.

If Dow cares so much about water why is it running away from Bhopal?

Put pressure on Dow to clean up its act in Bhopal by taking action here.

Thanks for your continued support and commitment to human rights.

Online Communities Team
Alaphia, Buddha, Jennifer and Jeremy

Venezuela: Media worker kidnapped; protest criminalised

2010-03-25T21:51:00.001-07:00

24 March 2010

Media worker kidnapped; protest criminalised

Venezuelan police fired tear gas at demonstrators and detained journalists covering protests in Aragua State, and a news editor was kidnapped in another part of the country, reports Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (IPYS). And according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), President Hugo Chávez continues to call for greater Internet regulation.

On 12 March, police detained journalists Rafael Uzcátegui, Marcos Ponce and Robert Calzadilla, members of the human rights organisation Provea, while covering demonstrations protesting the criminalisation of social protests. Their equipment was also seized.

And in western Venezuela, five masked, armed men kidnapped Carlos Ignacio Rocca, Televiza TV's news director and son of the president of the Televiza regional station, on 15 March.

Meanwhile, after a news and comments site incorrectly reported the assassination of a minister, President Chávez called for criminal prosecution to be brought against the site. The site's moderators said the false information was removed shortly after the site was notified. In a statement on television on 13 March, President Chávez said: "The Internet cannot be a completely free space, where anything is said or done. No, each country must impose its own rules."

"The government is using this case as a pretext for legitimising the regulation of a space that has until now escaped its control," said RSF.

Colombia: :Editor slain after receiving threats

2010-03-25T21:49:00.000-07:00

Editor slain after receiving threats

After receiving threats for years for reporting on links between local politicians, landowners and right-wing paramilitary groups, a 50-year-old Colombian journalist was shot to death on 19 March, report the Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP), the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Clodomiro Castilla Ospino, editor and owner of the magazine "El Pulso del Tiempo" and correspondent for La Voz de Montería, was killed as he sat reading a book outside his house, in Montería, Córdoba, northern Colombia. He was known for his condemnations of corruption in the region.

"Provincial reporters are particularly at risk and often refrain from reporting on sensitive subjects. Castilla courageously did not practice self-censorship, and his murder highlights the need for authorities to show their commitment to protecting the press," said CPJ.

Castilla Ospino participated in a journalist protection programme from August 2006 to February 2009, reports FLIP. In November 2009, he requested that the security measures, including a bodyguard, be reinstated. The protection program refused, saying he was not in danger based on a recent risk analysis.

Belarus: Authorities seek to eradicate independent journalism; BAJ under attack

2010-03-25T21:43:00.000-07:00

Authorities seek to eradicate independent journalism; BAJ under attack

Members of BAJ are fighting for their survival.

via BAJ

In the latest offensive to quash dissident Belarusian journalists, police conducted raids on independent newspapers and the homes of prominent journalists, report the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Furthermore, in a campaign to eliminate BAJ, authorities have ordered the press freedom organisation to revoke membership cards, stop providing independent journalists with legal aid, and alter language on its website.

According to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), on 22 March, the supreme court rejected BAJ's appeal against an interior ministry order to ban the use of BAJ membership cards with the word "press." BAJ was urged to collect all existing membership cards and terminate its legal assistance unit. Officials claim that BAJ press cards are illegal since BAJ is not a media outlet. BAJ's 2009 report, "Mass Media in Belarus", says existing media laws make any journalistic activity illegal without press credentials.

The ministry of justice initially issued the warning to BAJ on 13 January to target any information or support given to Belarusian journalists. Authorities claim that pro bono legal work done in support of independent journalists does not comply with BAJ's mandate; as a result, BAJ has been told to re-write the goals on its website. BAJ intends to appeal the recent court decision. But its hands are tied. If it receives a second warning, it can be shut down; and if the organisation does not comply with the demands of the first warning, it faces a six-month suspension.

RSF says the ruling also means freelance journalists and journalists working for foreign media that have been denied official accreditation will not be able to differentiate themselves from ordinary citizens when they are reporting on issues of public interest. This will discourage independent media coverage of possible protests in the run-up to elections at the end of April, and presidential elections in 2011, said BAJ. In 2009, a reporter for Belsat TV was arrested and released after showing police his BAJ card, says RSF.

"The ruling sets a dangerous precedent in effectively allowing the government to define who in Belarus is a journalist and who is not," said BAJ.

Several journalists have been harassed in recent weeks. On 16 March Minsk police raided the offices of the independent news website Charter 97, independent newspaper "Narodnaya Vola", and the homes of three journalists, confiscating computers, equipment and electronic documents as part of a criminal defamation investigation. Charter 97 editor Natallia Radzina was hit in the face during the raid at her office. The raids are linked to independent coverage of the prosecution of three police officers and abuses by the head of the interior ministry's anti-corruption and organised crime department. Police also attempted to raid the homes of BAJ members.

The 2009 BAJ report describes the deterioration of press freedom: journalists harassed with legal sanctions, websites blocked, editorial interference and censorship of FM radio stations, and regular raids on journalists' homes. Independent "socio-political media outlets" are denied registration certificates while state-owned broadcasting companies dominate the media environment. Belarusian state enterprises refuse to distribute half of the officially registered independent social and political periodicals.

Iraq: IFJ and ARTICLE 19 Pledge Support for UK Guardian Newspaper in Defamation Case

2010-02-21T16:45:00.000-08:00

Iraq: IFJ and ARTICLE 19 Pledge Support for UK Guardian Newspaper in Defamation Case

ARTICLE 19, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the affiliated Iraqi journalists’ union today called on the Iraqi authorities to drop charges of defamation against the British Guardian newspaper and its journalist, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad. The IFJ and ARTICLE 19 have filed a joint amicus brief to the Iraqi Appeal Court in advance of its hearing on 27 January.
In November 2009, an Iraqi court ordered the Guardian to pay a 100m dinar (£52,000) fine to the Prime Minister over a story published in April last year under the title “Six years after Saddam Hussein, Nouri al-Maliki tightens his grip on Iraq”.

The article quoted three anonymous members of the Iraqi Intelligence Services who alleged that the Prime Minister was running Iraqi affairs with a totalitarian hand, that the Iraqi government was close to the United States and that officials attached to the Iraqi national intelligence service were monitoring intelligence and military activities within the government itself.

The journalists were prosecuted under the Saddam-era Publications Law for reportedly defaming the Prime Minister and the Iraqi Intelligence Services. The court had also asked the newspaper and the journalist to disclose the names and contact details of the three officers. They refused.

The court commissioned a report from a group of three experts nominated by the Iraqi Union of Journalists, who concluded the article was not defamatory and thus no compensation should be granted.

The court disregarded this testimony and instead followed the opinion of a second panel who argued that the Guardian had violated the Publications Law by interfering in Iraqi internal affairs and harmed the reputation of the Prime Minister.

‘‘At the heart of this case is the fight for independent journalism and for protection of sources in Iraq,” says Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. “We urge the Iraqi authorities to drop the charges and to put media law reform on their agenda.”

The amicus brief filed by ARTICLE 19 and the IFJ reviews international standards for freedom of expression and argues that the court ruling disregarded well-established international law which guarantees the rights of the media to critically evaluate the activities of governments and their elected leaders. The Republic of Iraq has an obligation to protect the right to free speech in terms of its commitments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights.

“The Iraqi government should be protecting journalists, not prosecuting them,” comments Dr Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director. “Politicians need to be able to tolerate a greater degree of criticism and scrutiny than ordinary citizens, in the name of transparency and democratic process, and any attempts to interfere with the media’s right to report on politicians and public officials amounts to unacceptable censorship.”

NOTES :

• For more information from ARTICLE 19, please contact: Nicola Spurr, Senior Media Officer at nicola@article19.org, +44 20 7324 2500
• For more information from the IFJ, please contact Sarah Bouchetob, Arab World and Middle East Project Officer at sarah.bouchetob@ifj.org, +32 2 235 2205. The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 125 countries worldwide.

International Special Rapporteurs for Free Expression Highlight Critical Ten Challenges‏

2010-02-21T16:25:00.000-08:00

International Special Rapporteurs for Free Expression Highlight Critical Ten Challenges

The four international special rapporteurs on freedom of expression have released their tenth annual Joint Declaration on Ten Key Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the Next Decade. Brought together by ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Law and Democracy in February 2010, the special rapporteurs have issued a Joint Declaration each year since 1999.

The 2010 Joint Declaration, which reaffirms all the previous declarations, acknowledges important advances made for free expression over the past decade, especially regarding the enormous potential of the Internet as a tool for realising the rights to freedom of expression and information. At the same time, the Joint Declaration notes both the long-standing and emerging challenges to the full realisation of freedom of expression and identifies ten key threats as follows:

1. Increasing government control over the media through a range of mechanisms, including political influence over public media, punitive registration and licensing requirements, political ownership, and the use of antiquated rules.
2. Criminal and civil laws on defamation, slander and insult, which penalise statements which are factual or opinions, or which protect the reputations of symbols, state institutions or religions, or allow for overly harsh penalties.
3. Violence against journalists and the failure to prevent and investigate such attacks, and bring those responsible to justice.
4. The failure by a majority of states to adopt laws guaranteeing the right of access to information, and the weak implementation of such laws in many states which have.
5. Discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups who struggle to exercise their right to freedom of expression.
6. Commercial pressures, including a growing concentration of media ownership and the risk that public broadcasters will lose out during processes of digital switchover in many countries.
7. Challenges to the public funding support for public service and community broadcasters.
8. National security interests being used to justify unduly broad limitations on freedom of expression.
9. Government restrictions on the Internet, through the imposition of firewalls and filters, or the blocking of websites and web domains.
10. The limited access to the Internet by vulnerable people, such as the poor, and rural or elderly populations.

“These Joint Declarations elaborate on the meaning of freedom of expression according to different thematic areas,” says Dr Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director. “Collectively, the Declarations provide important guidance to those wishing to understand international human rights standards on freedom of expression.”

The four special mandates on freedom of expression are Frank La Rue, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Miklos Haraszti, the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe; Catalina Botero, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression for the Organisation of American States; and Pansy Tlakula, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information for the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights.

The four special mandates on freedom of expression were brought together by ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Law and Democracy. ARTICLE 19 first brought the special mandates on freedom of expression together in 1999 and they have issued a Joint Declaration every year since then.

NOTES :

• The full text of the Joint Declaration is available here: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/standards/tenth-anniversary-joint-declaration-ten-key-challenges-to-freedom-of-express.pdf
• For more information please contact: David Banisar, Senior Legal Counsel banisar@article19.org or +44 20 7324 2500

Burma: Aung San Suu Kyi Calls Upcoming Elections Illegitimate‏

2010-02-21T16:18:00.001-08:00

Burma: Aung San Suu Kyi Calls Upcoming Elections Illegitimate

Burma’s opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has stated that Burma’s severe restrictions on free expression and access to information will compromise any attempt to hold free and fair elections later this year.

Suu Kyi, who remains under house arrest in Rangoon, was speaking this week through her lawyer, Nyan Win. She said that she was unwilling to engage in the election process because the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of association are consistently denied to Burmese citizens.

According to Nyan Win: “‘If there is no freedom of information and freedom of expression, there will be no free and fair election’, Aung San Suu Kyi said. ‘The basic requirements like freedom of press, speech and campaigning, and also free and fair election will be needed if she has to decide whether or not to contest in election.’”

Suu Kyi also conveyed advice to her party, the National League for Democracy, via Win Tin, a senior journalist and NLD politician released in 2008 from 19 years in prison. She has apparently warned the Burmese people not to believe the regime’s claims that Burma will move towards a more open political environment after the elections. Suu Kyi will not be eligible to contest the elections, not because of her house arrest, but because of her marriage to a foreign citizen, which is proscribed under the Constitution.

Despite various promises from the authorities, it is still not clear when the elections will take place and how they will be implemented. There is no election law in place yet. Sources predict the possibility of a vote on the 10 October 2010 – 10/10/10 is a date with resonance in numerology for the notoriously superstitious military regime.

The regime has neither allowed political parties to campaign nor open offices, although there are reports that the military and military-backed organisations such as the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) have already begun electioneering. Burmese news website Mizzima, which reports from outside the country, reveals that state-owned media groups are already concentrating resources showing military officials giving out money and meeting with local leaders.

Dr Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director, comments: "On the day the world celebrates the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release, we must remember that there are many defenders of free expression trapped in prisons, none more so than in Burma. Hearing Suu Kyi's voice from beyond house arrest is a poignant reminder of the plight of many in Burma and elsewhere around the world who are imprisoned because of their stand for human dignity, and of their incredible courage in the face of adversity and torture."

“A free exchange of ideas and political opinions is absolutely crucial in the lead-up to any democratic election. Clearly, despite Suu Kyi’s bravery in confronting her jailers, Burma will not and does not fulfil any of the normal criteria for a democracy during this election process. We therefore stand by Aung San Suu Kyi in her courageous attempts to call the regime to account for its actions.”

ARTICLE 19 calls on the international community to pay attention to Suu Kyi’s words and to make it clear to the Burmese ruling Junta that no election will be legitimate without unfettered freedom of expression and information and the release of all political prisoners, including Suu Kyi.

Aung San Suu Kyi is an honorary board member for ARTICLE 19.

NOTES :

• For more information contact: Oliver Spencer, oliver@article19.org, +44 2073242500

Yemen: Controversial Special Court sentences journalists to jail and bans them from writing

2010-01-23T16:30:00.001-08:00

Yemen: Controversial Special Court sentences journalists to jail and bans them from writing

ARTICLE 19 expresses grave concern over prison sentences handed to two Yemeni journalists by the Special Court this week for expressing their opinion in print.

On January 17, Moaz Al-Ashihabi, a journalist for the Al Thaqafieh newspaper was taken to central prison following a Special Court sentence of one-year’s imprisonment for writing an article that “infringes on the Islamic faith”. Al–Ashihabi, is also banned from writing for one year.

A day earlier, on January 16, female writer Anisa Othman was sentenced to three months in jail for writing an article deemed offensive to state President Ali Abdullah Saleh in the weekly Al-Wasat newspaper. The court also banned Anisa from practicing journalism for one year.

The sentences were met by widespread protest and letters of condemnation from across Yemeni civil society. The Yemeni Journalists Syndicate said in a statement issued yesterday: “The ruling (against Al-Ashihabi) sets a dangerous precedent against writers and journalists. This clearly shows that the Court is merely a punitive tool used against the media.”

The controversial Special Court for Journalists was established in May 2009, following a decision by the Yemen Ministry of Information to suspend eight leading newspapers.

The government argued, through the state-run Saba news agency, that press cases necessitate experienced and specialized judges who understand the role of the press and appreciate the mission of press and journalists. It insisted that the court would be more efficient as it would try all press related cases in one place in the capital Sana’a.
However, the Special Court was a shock to the vocal Yemeni media and activists who viewed the court as another means of muzzling the press and intimidating journalists. Journalists have been staging protests demanding the abolition of the court, which they consider as unconstitutional, and the end to unjustified restrictions on freedom of expression.

“At a difficult time for Yemen, the court’s ruling is deeply disappointing,” says Dr. Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director “Journalists should not be tried in Special Courts and prison sentences should never be passed on journalists for expressing their opinion.”

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information please contact: Sa’eda Kilani, Director – ARTICLE 19, Jordan, sa’eda@article19.org, +962-79-9860004

Vietnam: ARTICLE 19 Condemns Convictions of Pro-Democracy Activists

2010-01-23T16:17:00.000-08:00

20 January 2010

Vietnam: ARTICLE 19 Condemns Convictions of Pro-Democracy Activists

ARTICLE 19 condemns the conviction today of four Vietnamese pro-democracy activists, including leading human rights lawyer, Le Cong Dinh. ARTICLE 19 also expresses its grave concern about increasing repression of activists and an accompanying clampdown on freedom of expression in Vietnam, ahead of the Communist Party congress due to take place next year.

Le Cong Dinh is a respected Vietnamese lawyer who has defended labour rights and democracy activists, and bloggers. He has also been an outspoken proponent of political pluralism and freedom of expression.

Dinh was joined in the dock by Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, named by the media as an internet entrepreneur, alongside Nguyen Tien Trung and Le Thang Long, in a trial lasting only one day. The four were arrested last June initially under the charge of spreading anti-government propaganda; they were later charged and convicted under the more severe Article 79 of the Criminal Code that prohibits “activities aimed at subverting the people's administration”. There are signs that the authorities are increasingly using Article 79, which allows for the death penalty, to prosecute political opponents.

Thuc received the longest sentence of 16 years; Dinh and Long were each sentenced to five years, and Trung seven years.

ARTICLE 19 believes that these convictions will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Vietnam. The fate of these four men must be viewed in the context of the recent convictions of other pro-democracy advocates, the arrests of bloggers and the blocking of the social networking site Facebook.

“The ability to hold and express different political views is central to democracy,” says Dr Agnès Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19. “The abuse of criminal statutes for the prosecution of individuals who oppose the government goes against Vietnam’s stated commitment to human rights and freedom of expression, as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Vietnam acceded in September 1982.”

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information please contact: Amy Sim, Asia Programme Officer at amy@article19.org or +44 20 7324 2511.

PAKISTAN: JOURNALISTS FLEE SWAT VALLEY

2009-05-15T06:05:00.000-07:00

Swat Valley

PAKISTAN: JOURNALISTS FLEE SWAT VALLEY

Only a few journalists are left in

Pakistan

's restive Swat Valley to cover
the government's military offensive against the Taliban, according to
Reporters Without Borders (RSF), as well as news reports on the website of
the Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

RSF reports that national newspapers are no longer being distributed for
safety reasons. Swat residents no longer have access to satellite
television since the Taliban damaged the district's only cable distribution
network, and journalists are fleeing the area out of fear for their safety.

The authorities have introduced a curfew in Swat and neighbouring districts
in a bid to stop the Taliban from reinforcing their positions in the
region.

"It is now impossible to get independently-sourced information about what
is happening in Swat Valley," RSF said.

Ghulam Farooq, the editor of the local daily "Shamal", told RSF, "All the
newspapers based in Swat have stopped publishing for security reasons,
because the situation is extremely dangerous. What's more, the curfew makes
it impossible for our staff to move about." According to news reports,
Farooq and his family have fled Swat.

Swat Press Club president Salahuddin Khan told reporters that journalists
had left the valley. "We are leaving Swat as we are under direct threat
from all sides," he said. Khan advised all journalists choosing to stay in
Mingora, Swat's main city, to work from home.

RSF is demanding the Pakistani authorities give journalists better
protection and permits "that allow them to circulate during curfew hours so
that they are able to do their job."

Visit these links:
- Journalists flee Swat Valley en masse (RSF):
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=31276
- PPF website: http://www.pakistanpressfoundation.org/

Earlier Mosa Khankhel was reporting for GEO TV when he was killed.

IRAN: ROXANA SABERI FREED

2009-05-15T05:52:00.000-07:00

IRAN: ROXANA SABERI FREED

IFEX members welcomed the release of U.S. Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi,
whose eight-year jail term for spying for the U.S. was this week reduced to
a suspended two-year sentence and a five-year ban on reporting from

Iran

.

Her fiancé, filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi, her parents and her lawyers greeted
her as she emerged from Tehran's Evin prison on 11 May. Her father told
reporters she would be leaving the country in the coming days.

"This is excellent news," Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said. "The appeal
court's decision to free her can be used as a legal precedent for other
journalists currently detained in Iran."

In a closed-door session that lasted five hours, a Tehran court heard
Saberi's appeal against her original eight-year sentence on 10 May.
Although exact details about the charges against Saberi have still not been
made public, the BBC reported that the initial charge of "passing secret
information" had been reduced to "having access to classified information,"
allowing for the commuted sentence.

Saberi's case sparked international attention. IFEX members mounted
vigorous campaigns for her release. The Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) circulated a petition calling for Saberi's release that garnered more
than 10,000 signatures, and along with 34 other IFEX members called on

Iran

's judiciary to free her. U.S. President Barack Obama was among those
who appealed on her behalf.

Saberi has been held in Tehran's Evin prison since her arrest in January.
Living in Iran since 2003, the Fargo, North Dakota native had freelanced
for several news organisations, including NPR and the BBC.

IFEX members continue to call on the Iranian government to safeguard the
rights of other journalists currently in jail. According to RSF, six
journalists and cyber-dissidents were arrested on 1 May in Tehran during
May Day demonstrations.

Visit these links:
- RSF: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/103001
- Roxana Saberi released from prison (CPJ): http://tinyurl.com/pzwkq7
- Iran frees jailed journalist (Human Rights Watch):
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/83044
- American-Iranian journalist released (WiPC): http://tinyurl.com/pjbapm

Vietnam: ARTICLE 19 Assists with Drafting Freedom of Information Law

2009-05-15T05:40:00.000-07:00

Vietnam: ARTICLE 19 Assists with Drafting Freedom of Information Law

ARTICLE has been working with the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice, which is drafting a right to information law, to help ensure that the draft is as consistent as possible with international standards and best national practice. To this end, ARTICLE 19 has hosted a team of Vietnamese experts in London and participated in meetings in Vietnam, and is providing ongoing technical legal assistance to the drafting team.

The Government of Vietnam has made a high-level commitment to adopt right to information (freedom of information) legislation as a matter of priority and a team lead by the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice has been working on preparing a draft law. The team contacted ARTICLE 19 in January 2009 asking for assistance.

A group of eight members of the drafting team, led by Dr. Hoàng Thế Liên, First Deputy Minister of Justice, was hosted by ARTICLE 19 in the United Kingdom from 15-21 March 2009. The team visited various government departments, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the National Archives, as well as various non-governmental organisations and academics. The purpose of the visit was to expose the team to experiences in the United Kingdom on the right to information.

ARTICLE 19 has been providing legal drafting support to the team. A detailed analysis of an early draft of the law (which has since been revised) was produced in April 2009. ARTICLE 19 is providing ongoing legal support to the drafting team, and will continue to do so as new drafts are produced. Finally, Toby Mendel, ARTICLE 19’s Senior Legal Counsel, participated in an International Workshop on Drafting a Law on Access to Information in Vietnam from 6-7 May 2009. Participants at the Workshop included government officials, academics and representatives of civil society organisations.

ARTICLE 19 strongly supports the development by Vietnam of a right to information law. We urge the authorities to ensure that the law which is finally adopted is consistent with international standards in this area.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• The Analysis is available at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/vietnam-memorandum-on-the-draft-law-on-access-to-information.pdf
• The English outline of the law can be found at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/laws/vietnam-law-on-access-to-information.pdf
• For more information, please contact Toby Mendel, Senior Legal Counsel, a19law@hfx.eastlink.ca, +1 902 431-3688.

ARTICLE 19 Wins Key Case at UN Human Rights Committee

2009-05-15T05:36:00.000-07:00

ARTICLE 19 Wins Key Case at UN Human Rights Committee

On 19 March 2009, the UN Human Rights Committee issued its decision in the case of Mavlonov and Sa’di v. Uzbekistan, which ARTICLE lodged with the Committee in November 2004. In the case, ARTICLE 19 argued that the refusal of the Uzbek authorities to re-register the first applicant’s newspaper was a breach of his right to freedom of expression, and also a breach of the second applicant’s right as a reader of the newspaper. The Committee accepted both arguments, with important implications in terms of the right to freedom of expression.

In finding a breach of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Committee stated:

“[The first applicant’s] ability to publish ‘Oina’ and to impart information, and [the second applicant’s] right to receive information and ideas in print, has been violated.”

The Committee also found a breach of the right to culture, as protected by Article 27 of the ICCPR, given the important role of Oina, a minority language newspaper, in the Tajik community.

ARTICLE 19 applauds this decision by the UN Human Rights Committee, which is groundbreaking in several respects. The Committee held that the application of the registration procedure itself breached the right to freedom of expression. While the Committee did not specifically elaborate on what conditions registration systems must meet, the decision is important inasmuch as it clearly demonstrates that registration must not impose unreasonable barriers to the operation of media outlets. Even more important was the recognition by the Committee of the right of the second applicant, as a reader. This is an extremely significant development and potentially opens up the way to a whole new line of freedom of expression argumentation.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information, please contact Toby Mendel, ARTICLE 19 Senior Legal Counsel, a19law@hfx.eastlink.ca, +1 902 431-3688.

Mexico: Murder of Fourth Journalist in the Year Demonstrates Urgent Need for Legal Reform

2009-05-15T05:35:00.000-07:00

Mexico: Murder of Fourth Journalist in the Year Demonstrates Urgent Need for Legal Reform

On World Press Freedom Day, Carlos Ortega Melo Samper a journalist from the newspaper El Tiempo de Durango in northern Mexico was assassinated. At the time of his death he had been undertaking investigations of alleged acts of corruption. ARTICLE 19 calls for immediate legal reforms to give the federal-level government the authority to investigate the murder and bring the perpetrators to justice.

On Sunday 3 May at 5 o’clock in the evening, a pick-up truck intercepted Carlos Ortega Melo Samper outside his home in the state of Durango in northern Mexico. The perpetrator fired his 40 caliber pistol three times from the truck, hitting Ortega in the head and killing him. The journalist had been working as a correspondent for the local newspaper El Tiempo for two years; he also worked as a lawyer in the municipality.

In an interview with ARTICLE 19, Fernando Mendoza who works for El Tiempo said that: “the first line of investigation for this assassination should be for the journalistic activity of Melo Samper and in particular his recent investigation of the sanitary conditions in the municipal slaughterhouse.” Mendoza added that the staff of El Tiempo had held a meeting with the Governor of the State of Durango, Ismael Alfredo Hernandez Deras, to discuss the investigation.

Melo Samper had complained about threats by local authorities as recently as two weeks prior to his death, for a story he had written on the sanitary conditions in the local state run slaughterhouse. As a result of this incident, before he died he wrote an article in which he stated that mayor of the municipality Martín Silvestre Herrera and Juan Manuel Calderón Guzmán, in charge of federal programmes and the municipal slaughterhouse, were responsible should any harm come to him. This article was in the editorial department of the paper awaiting publication at the time of his murder.

“Carlos Ortega’s case sadly underscores the need of providing federal authorities with the power and the capacity to investigate and sanction aggressions against journalists, particularly in cases, such as this one, where the local authorities are known to have previously harassed or threatened the victim”, stated Dr Agnès Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.

“The Mexican authorities must immediately undertake the much required legal and policy reform that would at least address the salient problem of impunity for crimes against the media”, Dr Callamard added.

The journalist had been at odds with local authorities for a number of years. In July 2005, following a formal complaint, the State Commission of Human Rights for Durango investigated high ranking members the of the local Public Security forces. The Commission concluded that elements of the public Security Forces had violated the journalist’s human rights.

Ortega was famous for his critical writing in the municipality. Since 2003, he worked on a number of local and regional newspapers, including El Sol de Torreón and El Siglo de Durango. Since 2008, he had been writing in El Tiempo as a correspondent and distributor. He contributed to the paper on a daily basis and was also writing for the weekly publication Expresión de Durango. Ortega had been living in the area for more than 10 years.

The assassination of journalists is the ultimate form of censorship. Local media and journalists play a pivotal role in informing society about subjects that are relevant to the local communities. Without a media able to operate freely and without fear, society is prevented from accessing information essential to decision-making and participating in the public life and local affairs.

ARTICLE 19 expresses its solidarity with colleagues, friends, and collaborators of the newspaper El Tiempo, and with the journalists in the region.

ARTICLE 19 calls on the authorities, in accordance with their international obligations, to investigate effectively the murder and prosecute those responsible.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information: please contact Ricardo González, Official of Program for Freedom Expresión ricardo@article19.org

Yemen: Three injured as newspaper offices attacked

2009-05-15T05:32:00.000-07:00

Yemen: Three injured as newspaper offices attacked

This morning police surrounded and opened fire on the offices of independent daily Yemeni newspaper Al Ayyam’s, resulting in injuries to three staff.

The shooting follows sustained police harassment since 4 May and the chief editor’s refusal to be arrested by police forces. Authorities have grown uneasy about the newspaper’s independent editorial line and its coverage of the events in the south of the country. Al Ayyam has not been able to go to print and its website has been blocked.

“This might be my last phone call,” says Bashraheel Bashraheel, Al Ayyam general director on the phone to ARTICLE 19. “I appeal to all freedom advocates to support us and help in lifting the siege.”

According to Bashraheel, Al Ayyam employees receive death threats on a daily basis and one of its designers, Yasser Hitari, has been menaced with having his head cut off.

“We have reached out to the authorities but without any response,” Bashraheel says. “On the contrary, judicial orders have been issued to arrest my father Hisham at any cost.”

Since 4 May, the Yemeni authorities have increased their stranglehold on the press. Al Ayam has had lawsuits filed against it and the authorities have repeatedly intercepted distribution trucks and burned the newspapers. Bashraheel says that Al Ayyam has incurred losses amounting to US$400,000 as a result of these measures.

The authorities are said to be unhappy with Al Ayyam’s publication of photos showing clashes between government forces and opposition groups in the south of Yemen.

“Surrounding a newspaper and attacking it is an extraordinary step. Only in fully fledged armed conflicts do we witness such situations,” says Dr Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director. “The attack must stop immediately. We demand that the Yemeni authorities lift the blockade on Al Ayyam and ensure the safety and security of all its staff.”

Al Ayyam was established in 1958 and is based in the southern city of Aden. It is very popular and considered by many Yemenis as an independent newspaper, adding particular voice to underprivileged people.

Al Ayyam is not the only newspaper suffering harassment and censorship. A comprehensive crackdown on the media by the Yemeni authorities has included six other newspapers over the past month, thereby possibly preventing potential coverage of the conflict in the south. There has been widespread unrest in the impoverished country for several years, especially in the south, where certain groups feel they are marginalised. Tension mounted in recent months, escalating at times into armed clashes between opposition protesters and government forces.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information: please contact Sa’eda Kilani, sa’eda@article19.org; Tel:+962-79-9860004

Report from IFEX -------------

YEMEN: POLICE RAID PAPER, WOUND THREE

This morning (13 May) police surrounded and opened fire on the office of
Yemen's leading independent daily, the latest target of the government's
crackdown on the media, report the Arabic Network for Human Rights
Information (ANHRI), ARTICLE 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
and other IFEX members.

The government blames the media for fomenting unrest in the country's south
where the military has clashed with the Southern Movement opposition group.
Allegedly annoyed with "Al-Ayyam"'s coverage of the conflict and refusal to
toe the official line, police surrounded the paper's office in Aden on 13
May and opened fire, resulting in injuries to three staff members.

The shooting follows sustained police harassment since the beginning of
May, when police laid siege to the office, preventing distribution of all
70,000 copies of the paper and searching employees. The paper has not
resumed production.

Dozens of protesters gathered in front of the besieged paper's offices on 4
May to protest the government's action, with the police eventually
dispersing the demonstrators, reported the "Al-Ayyam" website. On 6 May,
the authorities shut the website down.

Lawsuits have been filed against "Al-Ayyam"'s staff, and authorities have
repeatedly confiscated and burned copies of the paper as well as harassed
the paper's distribution drivers, says ARTICLE 19. Employees have also
received threatening phone calls and notes.

"This might be my last phone call," said Bashraheel Bashraheel, "Al-Ayyam"
general director on the phone to ARTICLE 19. "I appeal to all freedom
advocates to support us and help in lifting the siege."

Bashraheel says that "Al-Ayyam" has incurred losses amounting to US$400,000
as a result of the measures.

Other newspapers have suffered government harassment. Last week,
authorities barred the sale of seven other papers - "Al-Masdar",
"Al-Wattani", "Al-Diyar", "Al-Mustaqila", "Al-Nida", and "Al-Share" and
"Al-Ahali" - to prevent coverage of the conflict in the south. According to
Minister of Information Hassan Ahmed, the newspapers had published material
that worked against national unity and the country's interests and that
"spread hatred and enmity among the united people of Yemen."

The police campaign against the Yemeni press and journalists came a few
days after President Ali Abdullah Saleh voiced his anger over what he
described as "the separatists of the south."

"There is an intense and dangerous campaign of incitement against
independent newspapers," Sami Ghali, editor of "Al-Nida", told CPJ. "Imams
of Yemeni mosques received instructions to welcome the government decisions
to suspend newspapers."

In a separate incident, on 4 May, security officers arrested Fuad Rashid,
the owner and publisher of the Al-Mukalla Press website, during a raid in
Mukalla, Hadramoot and took him to an unknown location. The website had
covered the recent clashes. Blogger Yahya Barnahfud was arrested on 10 May.

In another disturbing development, CPJ reports that authorities have
announced a special court to try media and publishing offences, amid
protests from journalists and human rights defenders. Minister of Justice
Ghazi Shayef Al-Aghbari said the decision to establish this "special press
court" was "not politically motivated, but purely professional."

According to CPJ, Abdel Karim al-Khaiwani, an independent journalist who
has repeatedly been harassed by the judiciary and imprisoned, described the
court as a "huge step backward" and a "flagrant violation of the
constitution and international law."

Arafat Mudabish, chief editor of Al Tagheer news website, said leading
journalists and activists in Yemen have regarded the confiscation measure
and harassment tactics against all media as an "unprecedented massacre" on
journalism in Yemen.

"The only solution to the problems of the South is through dialogue and
addressing the origin of the problems and not through muzzling the press
and terrorising journalists," said ANHRI.

Dissatisfied groups in the south of the country have increasingly accused
authorities of marginalising the region, which merged with the north in
1990. Since early April there have been sporadic armed clashes between
government forces and armed protesters in the south of the country,
including a 27 April protest in Sana'a marking the anniversary of a failed
uprising against the government in 1994. At least 14 Yemeni troops and
civilians were killed last week in the clashes, The Associated Press
reported.

Visit these links:
- ARTICLE 19: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/103038/
- CPJ: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/103026/
- ANHRI: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/102925/
- Breaking the Chains (International Federation of Journalists), a report
that features Yemen among countries where press laws criminalise
independent reporting under the guise of national interests:
http://mena.ifj.org/en/pages/mena-press-freedom
- Yemeni police storm newspaper, wound three (AP):
http://tinyurl.com/oa9z5e

Brazil: Lula Sends Access to Information Bill to Congress

2009-05-15T05:30:00.000-07:00

13 May 2009

Brazil: Lula Sends Access to Information Bill to Congress

Brazilian President Lula da Silva today sent the long-awaited draft Access to Information Bill to the Brazilian National Congress. This is an important development that gives concrete form to the federal government’s stated commitment to adopt specific right to information legislation. The Bill seeks to implement Article 5 of Brazilian Constitution, which guarantees the right to information.

The draft Bill fulfils a commitment made by President Lula during his campaign for re-election in 2006, as well as historical demands by a range of civil society actors that have been calling for legislation to give proper effect to the constitutional guarantee. The Bill will now be reviewed by the two houses of Congress.

The Bill includes a number of positive measures, such as a list of information that must be disseminated on a proactive basis by public bodies, an obligation to respond to requests for information within 20 days, and coverage of information held not only by the executive, but also the legislative and the judicial branches of government. However, the text could still be significantly improved. A key problem is the failure of the Bill to establish an independent administrative oversight body to handle complaints and to promote effective implementation of the new law, a measure that has proven essential to successful opening up of government in other countries. ARTICLE 19 will soon release a detailed analysis of the draft Bill.

ARTICLE 19 welcomes this initiative as an important step towards promoting greater transparency in government. At the same time, it is unfortunate that a piece of legislation designed to promote greater participation was not the subject of broad consultation with citizens and civil society organisations before being sent to Congress. ARTICLE 19 further calls on the Brazilian Congress to make sure that there is extensive consultation with the public before the Bill is passed into law. We also urge Brazilian parliamentarians to ensure that the law which is adopted complies with international standards in this area.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information: please contact Paula Martins, paula@article19.org, +55 11 3057 0042

Burma: Aung San Suu Kyi Facing Trial and Incarceration in Insein Prison

2009-05-15T05:17:00.000-07:00

14 May 2009

Burma: Aung San Suu Kyi Facing Trial and Incarceration in Insein Prison

Burmese democracy leader and de jure prime minister Aung San Suu Kyi has early this morning been taken from her home and incarcerated in Insein Prison, on a charge of breaching the conditions of her house arrest order.

ARTICLE 19 urges the international community, and in particular India, China and ASEAN, to pressure the Burmese military government not to continue Suu Kyi’s 13-year detention on the basis of these outrageous charges. The organisation also calls on interested stakeholders to write to newspapers editors in India to call attention to the Indian government’s role in propping up the illegitimate Burmese regime.

The National League for Democracy, the Burmese political party which Suu Kyi leads, says that she faces an immediate trial on Monday 18 May. Under section 22 of the State Protection Act, Suu Kyi faces up to five years in prison.

Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for almost 14 of the last 19 years at her home in Rangoon. Last week, an American citizen, John William Yettaw, swam across Inya Lake and entered Suu Kyi’s house uninvited and without being stopped by guards. According to Suu Kyi’s lawyer U Kyi Win, Yettaw begged Suu Kyi not to alert her captors of his presence and allow him to stay while he recovered from a muscle strain.

According to Burmese law, it is mandatory to notify the military authorities about any overnight visitor and foreigners are not allowed to spend the night in a Burmese home. The State Protection Act is frequently used against democratic activists, and other members of Suu Kyi’s party have been imprisoned for similar offences.

Last week, Suu Kyi’s appeal against her imprisonment was rejected, even though, under the legislation used to detain her, her detention should end on 27 May 2009. The United Nations has declared that her imprisonment is not only illegal under international law, but also illegal under the Burmese military government’s own deplorable legal code, which only allows for a maximum of five-years in detention.

“The Burmese military government is blaming a prisoner for somebody breaking into a prison,” comments Dr Agnes Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director. “This would be laughable if it was not so unbelievably sad.”

“Every month that passes, we think that repression in Burma cannot get worse but it always does. The treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi by the authorities, in full sight of the country’s neighbours and various economic backers, is just sickening Worse still are the excuses and diplomatic games played by India, China and the ASEAN. By their silence and inaction, they are condoning the behaviour of the Burmese military junta. They are the walls and bars of Suu Kyi’s prison,” she adds.

Yettaw was arrested whilst swimming back across the lake and remains in Burmese prison, charged with entering a restricted area and contravening immigration regulations. His motives remain unclear, although there are reports that he is a Mormon who is writing a book about heroism and who intended to come into Suu Kyi’s house to pray with her. He is apparently not a Burma campaigner, as was originally described.

Suu Kyi is in poor health and has recently been on an intravenous drip. Her doctors have repeatedly been prevented from giving her the care she requires and her personal physician was arrested a few weeks ago.

ARTICLE 19 is also concerned about the seeming disappearance of John William Yettaw and calls upon the Burmese authorities to ensure that he is afforded access to proper legal representation and a fair trial.

ARTICLE 19 is urging interested stakeholders and anybody committed to the protection of human rights to write to one of the following India newspapers asking the editor to call attention to their government’s role in propping up the illegitimate Burmese regime:

Mr Jaideep Bose, Executive Editor, Times of India: mytimesmyvoice@timesgroup.com
Mr M.J. Akbar, Editor in Chief and Managing Director, The Asian Age: editoped@asianage.com
Mr N. Ram, Editor, The Hindu: letters@thehindu.co.in
Mr Sanjoy Narayan, Editor, Hindustan Times: feedback@hindustantimes.com

Please inform ARTICLE 19 of any actions that you may take.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information: please contact Oliver Spencer, oliver@article19.org +44 20 7278 9292

From International PEN

MYANMAR: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (f), leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and writer, taken to prison

14 May 2009

RAN 29/07 - Update #1

The Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN (WiPC) is outraged by the charges of ‘subversion' brought today against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), writer and Nobel Peace laureate, for allegedly breaching the conditions of her house arrest. She was taken from her Yangon home, where she has been held under house arrest for most of the past nineteen years, to Insein Prison early this morning. Earlier this month Aung San Suu Kyi was treated for dehydration and low blood pressure, and although her condition is said to have improved, concerns for her well-being are now mounting. PEN protests her detention, and calls for her immediate and unconditional release alongside all others detained in Myanmar in violation of Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to PEN's information, Aung San Suu Kyi was taken from her home, where she was being held under house arrest, to the notorious Insein Prison in Yangon early on the morning of 14 May 2009. Suu Kyi and two members of her house staff are detained under Section 22 of the State Protection Law for "subversion", following an incident in which a US citizen reportedly swam across the lake to her home and in doing so violated the ban on her meeting with anyone without prior permission. For more details go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8049187.stm

Aung San Suu Kyi is due to stand trial on 18 May 2009, and she could face up to five years in prison if found guilty.

Background
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Burma's independence hero General Aung San, became leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in September 1988, and in 1991 led the NLD to a landslide election victory which has never been recognised by the military government. Prior to this she had lived in the UK for many years, where she raised two sons with her late husband British academic Michael Aris, who died in March 1999 of cancer. Aung San Suu Kyi has spent a large part of the past eighteen years in detention in Yangon, much of it in solitary confinement. She was held under de facto house arrest for six years from July 1989-July 1995, and again from September 2000 until May 2002, when she was released as part of UN-brokered confidential talks between the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and the NLD which began in October 2000. Her most recent detention began when she was taken into ‘protective custody' following violent clashes between her supporters and those of the government on 30 May 2003, and she has since been held under renewable one-year detention orders.

Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 1991. She is the author of many books, including Freedom From Fear (1991), Letters from Burma (1997), The Voice of Hope (1997).

International PEN WiPC protests the detention of writer and opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who it considers to be detained in violation of Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We call upon the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to show its commitment to political dialogue in Myanmar by securing the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all others detained in Myanmar for the peaceful expression of their views.

Please send appeals:

protesting the detention of opposition leader and writer Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and calling for her immediate and unconditional release in accordance with Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Expressing concerns for her health, and seeking immediate assurances of her well-being.

Appeals to:

Senior General Than Shwe
Chairman, State Peace and Development Council
c/o Ministry of Defence, Naypyitaw, Union of Myanmar.
Salutation: Dear General

Appeals to Myanmar (Burma) Embassies:

WiPC strongly recommends that you copy your appeal to the Burmese embassy in your country asking them to forward it to the Burmese authorities and welcoming any comments.

Letters to the press:

PEN members may consider writing letters to their national newspapers expressing alarm at events in Burma, and highlighting Aung San Suu Kyi's case to illustrate the many years of repression in the country.

For further information please contact Cathy McCann at International PEN Writers in Prison Committee, Brownlow House, 50/51 High Holborn, London WC1V 6ER, Tel.+ 44 (0) 20 7405 0338, Fax: +44 (0) 20 7405 0339, email: cathy.mccann@internationalpen.org.uk

Say “No” Vote on "Religious Defamation "

2009-03-13T19:55:00.000-07:00

Geneva: ARTICLE 19 Campaigns for a “No” Vote on Religious Defamation at Human Rights Council

ARTICLE 19 is urging UN Human Rights Council members to vote against a resolution on “defamation of religions” at its regular session in Geneva this month.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) will likely propose a resolution on combating defamation of religion during the 10th session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in March 2009, although it has not yet made public the text of this resolution.

ARTICLE 19 is concerned that resolutions of this type represent a step back from established principles of freedom of expression because they limit free speech and disallow criticism of a religious belief.. They go beyond the concept of group defamation, since they may even prohibit the defamation of religious ideas and doctrines and limit the possibility for free debate or criticism of religion. “The concept of defamation of religion is vague and has no basis in international law. International human rights laws protect the rights of individuals; they do not protect religions, ideologies or belief systems,” says Dr Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer for ARTICLE 19. “The resolution seeks to protect the belief, rather than the believers.”Equally, ARTICLE 19 is concerned that the concept, if passed into national legislation in some countries, may lead to persecution of those who challenge religious doctrine, as well as possible prosecution of religious minorities or a general silencing of dissenting voices. ARTICLE 19 has actively lobbied 23 countries expressing serious concerns about this proposed resolution. The last time a similar resolution came before the HRC, 21 states voted in favour, 11 against and 14 abstained. ARTICLE 19 is now lobbying states who abstained to vote against the resolution, and states who voted in favour to now abstain. Defamation of religion was first introduced into the UN system in 1999 and several resolutions have passed through the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council in recent years. “ARTICLE 19 believes that the adoption of further resolutions on defamation of religions will undermine the established framework of international human rights law as well as the credibility of the Human Rights Council itself,” comments Dr Agnès Callamard, ARTICLE 19 Executive Director.Instead, ARTICLE 19 recommends that the UN must not allow the concept of “defamation of religion” to become the international standard, Instead, the countries should commit to implementing a key provision (article 20) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which prohibits “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
NOTES TO EDITORS:
• For more information: please contact Nicola Spurr: Nicola@article19.org; Tel: +44 2072789292; Mob: +44 7726867868• The OIC is a delegation to the UN which represents 57 countries aligned to Islamic values.

Yemen: Women Journalists Subjected to Censorship and Slanderous Attack

2009-03-13T19:42:00.000-07:00

Under muslim laws women are degraded, it should be stopped . http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[157]=x-157-555372

ARTICLE 19 marks International Women’s Day on 8 March with the release of a report analysing the role and representation of women in the Yemeni media.
Yemen: Women Journalists Subjected to Censorship and Slanderous Attack
It is not easy to be a woman working for the media in Yemen, according to the research findings. Female journalists who criticise the government or the country’s President are regularly subjected to public slander in rival publications. This takes the form of insults or fabricated allegations about their personal lives, often published in publications owned or controlled by the government. Public insults against women are particularly damaging in a country where women struggle to achieve prominence in public and professional life. Yemen is a conservative society which has a rigid code of “honour” and insinuations against an individual’s morality can have a devastating impact.In Yemen, the media is frequently censored and all journalists run the risk of being harassed or threatened by the state if they openly criticise the government. All broadcast media is state-owned and controlled in Yemen and, while there are several independent newspapers and magazines, they may also censor themselves for fear of attack. Yet, it seems that women journalists are exposed to much more severe forms of attack, simply because they are women.The research also found that women are severely under-represented in the Yemeni media. Less than 20 per cent of articles are written by women and less than 30 per cent of articles feature women as sources. Stories about women overwhelmingly fall into a broadly “social” category, thereby conveying the perspective that women’s roles are mostly confined to the family and home. There are very few stories that depict women in leadership, in public life and in positions of authority. In addition, 50 per cent of articles about women portray them in an extremely negative light – either as victims, as morally compromised, or as somehow responsible for social ills. “ARTICLE 19 calls on editors and media owners to protect women journalists from slanderous attack,” comments ARTICLE 19 Executive Director, Dr Agnès Callamard, “and to ensure that stories featuring women, reflecting women’s experiences and portraying women as fully-fledged members of society are given more prominence.”ARTICLE 19 has also called upon the Yemeni government to ensure that freedom of expression is protected and enhanced, and that all means of censoring the media are immediately stopped. The research was conducted by ARTICLE 19, in collaboration with the Yemeni Female Media Forum, and forms part of a larger project working to create a supportive legal framework for the media in Yemen.

NOTES TO EDITORS:
• For the full report, please visit: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/yemen-an-analysis-of-women-in-the-media.pdf• For more information: please contact Jasmine O’Connor, ARTICLE 19 Senior Director for Development at jasmine@article19.org or +44 20 7278 9292.

Sri Lanka: Free Journalist Detained on Terrorism Charges

2009-03-13T19:14:00.000-07:00

For more information: please contact Oliver Spencer, oliver@article19.org, +44 20 7278 9292

Sri Lanka: Free Journalist Detained on Terrorism Charges
365 days after Sri Lankan journalist J.S. Tissainayagam was detained under Anti-Terrorism legislation, ARTICLE 19 joins many people and organisations around the world calling for his immediate release.
Tissainayagam, now an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience, was detained without charge on 7 March 2008. Following international calls for his release the Sri Lankan authorities finally brought charges against him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act on 25 August 2008 for a series of newspaper articles. According to journalist and former Convener of the Sri Lankan Free Media Movement, Uvindu Kurukulasuriya, “Tissainayagam was considered a kind of bridge between the north and south, or the Sinhalese and the Tamils. He has written many articles concerning the ethnic situation in Sri Lanka.”Dr Agnes Callamard, Executive Director ARTICLE 19 adds “over the past 3 years more than 14 journalists have been killed in Sri Lanka and many have escaped to India and the West, fearing for their lives. Tissainayagam’s case well demonstrates the threats that counter terrorism legislation and measures pose to freedom of the press, as they are so easily abused. His continued imprisonment for the peaceful expression of his opinion sadly constitutes one of the many violations that are common place in today’s Sri Lanka, including wide censorship, self-censorship, death threats, violence and arbitrary arrests.”Today ARTICLE 19 joins seven media rights organisations in demanding that the Sri Lankan government urgently review his case. To read the full statement, visit: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/international-press-freedom-groups-call-for-justice-for-jailed-sri-lankan-jo.pdfTo read past ARTICLE 19 statements on Tissainayagam’s case, visit:• Sri Lanka: Journalist Still in Detention After 250 Days - http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/sri-lanka-journalist-still-in-detention-after-250-days.pdf• Sri Lanka: Free Speech Indicted - http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/sri-lanka-free-speech-indicted.pdf

Journalist Tissainayagam to get “Reporters without borders” Award

http://transcurrents.com/tc/2008/12/post_104.html

Detained Sri Lankan Tamil journalist J.S. Tissainayagam has been designated as a recipient of a prestigious award by the media watchdog Reporters Without Borders. Tissainayagam is behind bars in Sri Lanka being the first journalist to be charged under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act for his journalistic writing.
[J.S. Tissainayagam-in Aug 2008]
The awards will be distributed on Thursday 4 December, 11 a.m., at the Espace Fondation EDF, 6 rue Récamier, in Paris, Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize winner, will present the prize to the winners.
Tissainayagam has been given the award under Category 1 which relates to "Journalists who through their work, their principled stand or their attitude have displayed support for freedom of information".
The citation about Tissainayagam is as follows:Sri Lanka - J. S. Tissainayagam
Currently held in appalling conditions in a Colombo prison, Tamil journalist J. S. Tissainayagam was arrested in March 2008 while working on the launch of the news website Outreachlk. He was charged with terrorism on the basis of articles he wrote in 2006 in which he referred to a military offensive in the Tamil region that was accompanied, he said, by a terrible humanitarian crisis for the civilian population. This is the first time that a journalist has been held on terrorism charges because of what he wrote.
A contributor to the Sunday Times newspaper, Tissainayagam set up Outreachlk in February 2008 with funding from the German development agency GTZ. His lawyer has never been allowed to speak to him in private all the time he has been held by the anti-terrorism police in the capital. Attempts have been made to intimidate his wife and European parliamentarians had to intercede in order to get the authorities to agree to let him have the glasses he needs to read. Two other journalists are being held in connection with the case.
The 2008 nominees in the "Journalist" category in addition to Tissainayagam are :
Niger - Moussa Kaka
Syria - Michel Kilo
Russia - Natalia Morar
Vietnam - Nguyen Viet Chien
Cuba - Ricardo González Alfonso

NEWS : FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and HUMAN RIGHTS

Thailand: Grandfather sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for anti-monarchy text messages

Bahraini forces rape, kill female poet

Journalist brutally assaulted by members of ruling party's youth wing

source: IFEX

Journalist brutally assaulted by members of ruling party's youth wing

Source:

Nominate someone for the Gleitsman International Activist Award

Nominate someone for the Gleitsman International Activist Award

Missing journalist found dead

Missing journalist found dead; newspaper bombed

G8: New Unjustified Internet Restrictions Would Hamper Free Flow of Information

Help free political artist Ai Weiwei

Help free political artist Ai Weiwei

New UN resolution turns away from religious defamation concept

Supporting Freedom of Speech and Wikileaks‏

Supporting Freedom of Speech and Wikileaks‏

Artist Alert: March 2011‏

Artist Alert: March 2011‏

Vote for your favourite free expression blog

Vote for your favourite free expression blog

UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize open for nominations

UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize open for nominations

Human Rights Watch accuses UN of being soft on abuse

Human Rights Watch accuses UN of being soft on abuse

UN HRC: International Community Urge Nepal to Address Impunity and Protect Journalists

UN HRC: Widespread Condemnation of Burma at Human Rights Review

Draft General Comment No. 34 on Freedom Of Opinion & Expression

Top 10 press freedom stories of 2010

IPI's top 10 press freedom stories of 2010

At least 44 journalists killed for their work in 2010, say IFEX members

At least 44 journalists killed for their work in 2010, say IFEX members

IFEX members speak out on WikiLeaks

IFEX members speak out on WikiLeaks

How 250,000 US embassy cables were leaked

Cablegate leaks divide opinion on freedom of information

Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority

Islamists' Twin Assault on Free Speech

Islamists' Twin Assault on Free Speech

Help determine where BlackBerry servers are

Help determine where BlackBerry servers are

Judicial harassment stifles free expression

Judicial harassment stifles free expression

Artist Alert: August 2010‏

Appeal for urgent intervention as activists are tortured for speaking out

Take action!

Appeal for urgent intervention as activists are tortured for speaking out

Two media workers killed in bomb attack; journalist kidnapped and tortured

Two media workers killed in bomb attack; journalist kidnapped and tortured

Two targeted killings of journalists in two days; 230 journalists killed during Iraq War

Two targeted killings of journalists in two days; 230 journalists killed during Iraq War

Venezuela: Supreme Court Restricts the Right to Information

India - Kashmir: Journalists barred from reporting on demonstrations; journalist slain

Journalists barred from reporting on demonstrations; journalist slain

Pakistan against Free Speech

Pakistan poised to vote on restricting media

Pakistan to monitor Google and Yahoo for 'blasphemy'

Pakistan blocks access to YouTube in internet crackdown

Analysis

Kenya: against Harmful Speech

Bangladesh : Hundreds of police shut down pro-opposition newspaper

Hundreds of police shut down pro-opposition newspaper

Israeli Defence Forces assault flotilla of activists and journalists, impose media blackout

Israeli Defence Forces assault flotilla of activists and journalists, impose media blackout

Free Speech Campaigners in London Protest Against Continued Persecution of Jailed Editor

ISRAEL: Israel needs to heed international calls for free flow of information‏

Tunisia:Harassment, Intimidation of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists

Journalists under threat from suicide bombs, abductions and censorship

Journalists under threat from suicide bombs, abductions and censorship

Photos of extrajudicial killings banned

Photos of extrajudicial killings banned

China: US companies refuse to bow to online surveillance

US companies refuse to bow to online surveillance

Honduras : Five journalists killed in one month

Five journalists killed in one month

UN resolution on defamation of religions goes against free speech

UN resolution on defamation of religions goes against free speech, say IFEX members

UN Human Rights Council: ARTICLE 19 Welcomes Decrease in Support for “Defamation of Religions”

Honduras: Another Two Journalists Killed as Crackdown on Free Expression Intensifies

Indonesia: Human Rights NGOs Argue "Defamation of Religions" Law Contravenes Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion and Equality In Legal Brief to