This blog is for education and culture at large on this planet. All content and information posted here collected from different (published) media. Articles written or reposted with credit from the original post and updated by Albert Ashok. If you find any news/information incorrect/wrong, please bring it to my knowledge for correction. We express our unwilling ignorance. I pray you to donate me for the maintenance of my blogs. Reach me albertashok@gmail.com
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
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
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.
Haiti's earthquake last year tops IPI's list of the 10 press freedom stories of 2010
5 January 2011
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.
"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.
As online whistleblower WikiLeaks started publishing hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. embassy cables this week, from unflattering assessments of world leaders to secret plans to topple governments, here's what three IFEX members - ARTICLE 19, Index on Censorship and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) - had to say.
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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 2500end_of_the_skype_highlighting
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 555end_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 333end_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.
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
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
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.
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.
Haiti's earthquake last year tops IPI's list of the 10 press freedom stories of 2010
"When journalists are targeted, the truth dies" - a banner from Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
